Allowed¶12

Shivam Birdi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2023BAIL/13832/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:179874), CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 13832 of 2020, decided 18-9-2023 by Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J. Bail granted to Shivam Birdi in Case Crime No. 426 of 2018 under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (destruction of evidence) IPC, P.S. Khod, District Ghaziabad; custody since 14-06-2018; Article 21 prolonged-incarceration plea citing Indrani Pratim Mukerjea, SLP (Crl.) No. 1627 of 2022; release on personal bond with two sureties of like amount without comment on merits; bail cancellable on breach of conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the five conditions set out in paragraphs 13 to 18; breach of any condition entitles the trial court to cancel the bail.

Shivam Birdi Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, arraigned in Case Crime No. 426 of 2018 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC (P.S. Khod, District Ghaziabad), should be released on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶6

Court's answer

On a holistic consideration of the material available on record and the circumstances, the nature of the allegations, the absence of any strong rebuttal material, and the fact that there is no likelihood of tampering with the available evidence, the court found proper basis for releasing the applicant on bail.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the enumerated conditions.

¶12

Key takeaways

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the trial court shall be free to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Sections 302 and 201 IPC arising out of Case Crime No. 426 of 2018, P.S. Khod, District Ghaziabad; applicant Shivam Birdi stated to be in custody since 14-06-2018. Counsel for the applicant urged false implication, absence of any direct eyewitness, no recovery of the deceased's body on his pointing out, clean antecedents and a trial unlikely to conclude soon, placing reliance on Indrani Pratim Mukerjea vs. CBI, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1627 of 2022, on the ground that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial offends Article 21 of the Constitution. The State opposed bail on account of the serious and heinous nature of the alleged offence. Holding that, on the material on record, the nature of the allegations, the absence of strong rebuttal material and the absence of any likelihood of tampering with evidence furnished proper basis for bail, the court, without commenting on the merits, directed release on a personal bond with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no intimidation of witnesses or the complainant, compliance with court orders and attendance on fixed dates, no misuse of liberty or commission of any offence, and no influencing of witnesses or police personnel); breach of any condition empowers the trial court to cancel the bail.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179874

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13832 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Shivam Birdi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Kumar Tyagi,Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

orZeku nkf.Md izdh.kZ tekur izkFkZuk i=] vkosnd f’koe fcjnh dh vksj ls eq0v0la0 426 lu 2018] vUrxZr /kkjk 302] 201 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk [kksMk] ftyk xkft;kckn esa tekur ij eqDr djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA

¶7

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk ifj’khyu fd;kA

¶8

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd vkosnd dks bl izdj.k esa xyr ,oa QthZ rjhds ls >wBk QWlk;k x;k gS] mlus dfFkr vijk/k dkfjr ugha fd;k gS] vkosnd us rFkkdfFkr ?kVuk ugha dkfjr dh gS] vkosnd u rks ekSds ls fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh mlds fu’kku nsgh ij e`rd dh yk’k cjken gq;h gS] vkosnd dks iqfyl us fn0 14&6&2018 dks ?kj ls mBkdj eqdnesa esa Qalk fn;k gS] ?kVuk dk dksbZ izR;{kn’khZ lk{kh ugha gS vkSj u gh vfUre ckj ns[ks tkus dh lk{; vkosnd ds f[kykQ gS] vkosnd dk dksbZ iwoZ vkijkf/kd bfrgkl ugha gS] vkosnd funksZ"k gS rFkk og bl izdj.k esa 14&6&2018 ls dkjkxkj es a fu:) gS] bl okn ls lacaf/kr l= ijh{k.k ds fuLrkj.k dh 'kh/kz laHkkouk utj ugha vk jgh gS] blfy, vkosnd dks tekur ij NksM+ fn;k tk;A

¶9

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa Indrani Pratim Mukerjea vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1627 of 2022 to submit that prolonged incarceration of a person as an under trial is against his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fof/k&O;oLFkk dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;kA

¶10

fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk us vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdksZ dk izcy fojks/k djrs gq, rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd vkosnd }kjk dkfjr vijk/k laKs; ,oa xEHkhj izd`fr dk gS] blfy, vkosnd dks tekur ij u NksM+k tk;A

¶11

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdksZ ds ifjizs{; esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lkjoku rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk lexz :i ls voyksdu djus ds ckn] lcwrksa dh izd`fr vkSj fdlh Hkh Bksl fojks/kkRed lkexzh dh vuqifLFkfr ,oa miyC/k lkexzh ls NsM+NkM+ dh laHkkouk u gksus ds rF; dks ns[krs gq, esjh jk; esa vkosnd dks tekur ij eqDr djus dk mi;qDr vk/kkj gSA

¶12

vr% okn ds xq.k nks"k ij fcuk dksbZ fVIi.kh fd, gq, vkosnd dks mijksDr of.kZr vijk/k esa lacaf/kr U;k;ky; dh lUrqf"V ij O;fDrxr ca/k&i= ,oa vf/kd /kujkf’k ds nks LFkkuh; izfrHkw izLrqr djus ij fuEufyf[kr 'krksZ ds lkFk tekur ij NksM+ fn;k tk;A

¶13

1& vkosnd foospuk ;k ijh{k.k ds nkSjku vfHk;kstu lk{;ksa ds lkFk NsM + NkM+ ugha djsxkA

¶14

2& vkosnd vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa o ihfM+r@f’kdk;rdrkZ dks Mjk;sxk@/kedk;sxk ughaA

¶15

3& vkosnd U;k;ky; ds vkns’kksa dk ikyu djsxk] og ijh{k.k ds nkSjku fcuk dksbZ vuko’;d LFkxu

¶16

fy, fu;r frfFk ij U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksxk rFkk ijh{k.k esa bZekunkjh ls lg;ksx djsxkA

¶17

4& vkosnd tekur ij fjgk gksus ds ckn tekur dh Lora=rk dk nq:i;ksx ugha djsxk vkSj fdlh Hkh vijkf/kd xfrfof/k esa fyIr ugha gksxk u dksbZ vijkf/kd d`R; djsxkA

¶18

5& vkosnd izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls ekeys ds rF;ksa ls ifjfpr fdlh Hkh O;fDr ;k iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa dks dksbZ izyksHku ;k /kedh ugha nsxk u gh muls dksbZ ok;nk djsxk] ftlds dkj.k mUgsa U;k;ky; esa rF;ksa dks mtkxj djus ls fojr jguk iM+sA

¶19

mijksDr 'krksZ esa ls fdlh ds mYya?ku ds ekeys esa] ijh{k.k U;k;ky; vkosnd dh tekur fu;ekuqlkj jn~n djus dks Lora= gSA

fn0 % 18&9&2023

ds0lh0flag

2 of 2

Digitally signed by :- KAILASH CHANDRA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shivam Birdi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Birdi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratnesh Vs State of U.P.

Kaluram Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Irshad Khan Alias Ayyub Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sompal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Maina Devi Vs State of U.P.