Allowed

Shysam Sundar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2023ABAIL/12803/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for an accused charged with theft of sand/minerals. The accused was released on a personal bond with sureties subject to conditions like appearing before investigating and trial officers and not tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail till submission of chargesheet on personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions.

Shysam Sundar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12803 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shysam Sundar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghubir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Raghubir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State assisted by Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, Brief holder and perused the record.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0090 of 2022, under Section 379 IPC, Sections 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals Act and Sections 3/5 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Nibohara, District Agra.

¶7

As per the allegations in the FIR lodged by S.I. Vasudev Singh, the present applicant and certain others have been indulging in stealing and illegal transport of sand/minerals; an FIR was lodged with the allegations that the first informant confidentially inquired about them and found them complicit in the incident of illegally transporting of sand.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he is absolutely innocent and he was not in the video which is said to be in circulation in social media and that he has been falsely named for ulterior motives.

¶9

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by the other side and it is contended that the matter is still under investigation, therefore, any indulgence of this Court shall not be very fruitful.

¶10

In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, In my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

Let the applicant, Shysam Sundar involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail till submission of chargesheet on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following condition that the applicant shall appear before the investigating officer within 15 days from today and get his statement recorded. He shall furnish an affidavit at the earliest before the concerned court below that he actually complied with the aforesaid condition; subject to further conditions as below:-

¶13

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶15

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶16

(iv) that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

10. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶21

Order Date :- 2.2.2023 #Vikram/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shysam Sundar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shysam Sundar 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

Mahatam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Javed Quresi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Mohani and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Premchand Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Musarrat Gulam Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Banti Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others