Allowed

Sukhdev @ Sukhvindra @ Sukkha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2023BAIL/1676/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a second bail application by the applicant in a life imprisonment case. The High Court allowed bail by noting trial commencement, jail overcrowding, and citing an Apex Court judgment for speedy trial, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding witness tampering, attendance, and no new crimes.

Sukhdev @ Sukhvindra @ Sukkha Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1676 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sukhdev @ Sukhvindra @ Sukkha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Punita Pandey,Shweta Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akash Tyagi,Shantanu Bhardwaj

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Shweta Pandey learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Shantanu Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sukhdev @ Sukhvindra @ Sukkha, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 703 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B, 34 IPC Police Station Chandpur, DistrictBijnor, during pendency of trial.

¶7

This is the second bail application.The first bail application was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 23.3.2021.As per order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 3.2.2023,the matter has been placed before his court.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after rejection of the first bail application, co-accused Neeraj has been enlarged on bail by another coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 8.12.2022 in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 25125 of 2021 and co-accused Kosindra has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 22.9.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1620 of 2022.The case of the applicant stands on same footing. The applicant is in jail since 31.12.2020 and has no criminal history.

¶9

Learned counsel for the informant has informed that trial has begun.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence,

¶12

complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed

¶13

Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶15

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶16

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶17

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 ofÏcer;

¶18

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the

¶19

dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶20

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

In case the trial has commenced, the trial court will conclude the same within a period one year as per section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Registrar (Compliance) of this court is directed to communicate this order to the trial court for compliance.

¶24

Order Date :- 2.3.2023 Atul kr. sri.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sukhdev @ Sukhvindra @ Sukkha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev @ Sukhvindra @ Sukkha 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

Shekhar Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abdul Vs State of U.P.

Sudheer Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepu Singh Solanki Vs State of U.P.