Allowed

Saptaram @ Sattaram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2023BAIL/18231/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application concerning offences underSections 302, 147, 148 IPC, the Allahabad High Court, without adjudicating on merits, allowed the bail plea by observing that the co-accused holding the weapon has already been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Saptaram @ Sattaram Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18231 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Saptaram @ Sattaram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Virendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused/applicant, Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the accused/applicant. First bail application filed on behalf of the accused/applicant was rejected on 16.12.2020 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶7

Learned counsel for accused/applicant submitted that accused/applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime. He further submitted that he is named in the FIR and in his hand the weapon axe has been shown, but no weapon of offence recovered. He further submitted that co-accused Sushil has also been shown armed with axe and the weapon of offence axe has been recovered at his pointing out and he has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide dated 08.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.46888 of 2020. The accused-applicant is languishing in jail since 06.07.2020. The accused/applicant has no criminal history, as stated in paragraph No.15 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application of the accused/applicant and submitted that there is eyewitness account and the injuries have been found on the body of the deceased, which would occur if the weapon is used from blunt side.

¶9

Considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

¶10

It transpires from the record and submissions made that there is eyewitness account and the injuries have been found on the body of the deceased, which would occur if the weapon is used from blunt side but no weapon of offence has been recovered either from possession or at the pointing out of accused/applicant. Coaccused from whose possession weapon was recovered has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench. The accused-applicant is languishing in jail since 06.07.2020.

¶11

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on merit of the case, it appears just to enlarge the accused applicant on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Saptaram @ Sattaram , involved in Case Crime No. 70 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 302 of I.P.C, Police Station Pinahat, District Agra 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 with the following conditions;

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(iv) 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 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

¶18

proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

(v)The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶20

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶21

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶22

(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 14.2.2023 A. K. Singh

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saptaram @ Sattaram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saptaram @ Sattaram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kallu Alias Buddhsen Vs State of U.P.

Anup Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mister Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Hoshiyar Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Mishra Vs State of U.P.