Allowed

Prakhar Saxena v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2022BAIL/57356/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application was filed challenging the impugned order of a lower court. The court quashed the opposite party's delay in providing instructions to the Advocate General and directed action against erring police officials. The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was released on bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties; SSP Bareilly directed to take action against erring officials.

Prakhar Saxena Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57356 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Prakhar Saxena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 398 of 2022 at Police Station Subhashnagar District Bareilly under Section 306 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 26.10.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly on 06.12.2022.

¶7

Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant and the victim were intimate. Their consensual relationship was opposed by the family members of the victim. The deceased in a fit of depression committed suicide on account of the opposition of her family members to her relationship with the applicant. The applicant has been nominated only to deflect attention from the main culprits. The delay of 41 days in lodgement of the F.I.R. is fatal to the prosecution case. The applicant did not abet or instigate the suicide.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant lastly contends that

¶9

the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. The applicant's family resides in Bareilly and his source of livelihood is also situated in the same district. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶10

Shri Dhirendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Shri Markandey Singh, learned AGA contends that no instructions have been forthcoming.

¶12

Liberty of citizens is too sacrosanct and cannot be held to ransom by apathy of the police officials. There is no cause for failing to provide instructions to the learned Government Advocate despite advance notice of the bail application.

¶13

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, shall take appropriate action against the erring police officials for failing to send appropriate instructions to the Government Advocate in this case and forward details to the Director General of Police, Government of U.P., Lucknow through proper official channel.

¶14

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is

¶15

entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant- Prakhar Saxena be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶20

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

In case any averment made in the bail application or the submissions during the course of argument are found to be false or in case of breach of any of the above condition, the State/prosecution may move an application for cancellation of bail application.

¶23

Order Date :- 16.12.2022 Dhananjai

¶24

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.12.21 12:29:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prakhar Saxena v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakhar Saxena v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Collector Vs Asgar Ali

Dinesh Vs Lakshmi Devi Bhalla and 5 Others

Smt. Usha Devi and 4 Ors. Vs Sone Ram Sharma and 2 Ors.

Sainath Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Leela Devi Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Gond Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others