Allowed

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2022BAIL/7660/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application by an applicant already in jail for nearly 10 years in a murder case, the High Court allowed bail. The applicant was released on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions preventing adjournments and ensuring presence at key trial stages.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7660 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh Khokher Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyam Narayan

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J .

¶5

Heard Shri Birendra Singh Khokher, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satyam Narayan, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that this is third bail application filed on behalf of applicant. The first and second bail of the applicant were rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its orders dated 07.04.2016 & 10.07.2017.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 18.04.2013 and he has already undergone incarceration for almost 10 years. Applicant is in jail; trial is not likely to be concluded expeditiously; applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court rendered in Saudan Singh vs. State of U.P. decided on 25.2.2022, in Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2022 [@ SLP (Crl.) No. 4633 of 2021. It is lastly submitted that applicant have no previous criminal history.

¶8

Learned AGA has strongly opposed the prayer for bail but he has not been able to dispute the aforenoted judgment.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant, Shiv Kumar , involved in Case Crime No. 200 of 2013, under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶10

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on

¶12

each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case,

¶15

(ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶19

O rder Date :- 21.10.2022 Vibha Singh

¶20

Digitally signed by VIBHA SINGH Date: 2022.10.22 13:31:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhruv Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Bahujan @ Sanjay @ Nityanandan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikash @ Banti Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Veer Vrat Alias Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Singh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P.