Allowed

Sanjeev @ Sandeep v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2023BAIL/19468/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant, Sanjeev, in a criminal matter involving abduction and other serious offences, citing overcrowding in jails, uncertainty of evidence, and the need for speedy trial under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions including presence in court and non-tampering with evidence.

Sanjeev @ Sandeep Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:134572

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19468 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjeev @ Sandeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chand,Sudhir Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant and three named coaccused in the FIR regarding abduction of minor girl with intent to marry.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that subsequently the implication was made under Section 376D, 302, 201, 34 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act. He has submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR. After one year and nine months his name was taken by the friend of deceased, Rajni, that the applicant had consenting relationship with the deceased and hence he was implicated and recovery of some incriminating articles were allegedly made.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant also submits that before the trial Court the informant and alleged the eye-witness, Rajni, has been examined and they have been declared hostile. They have not supported the prosecution case. The applicant is in jail since 11.11.2020 and has criminal history of one case subsequently under Gangsters Act.

¶11

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, 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

¶13

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 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.

¶14

Let the applicant, Sanjeev @ Sandeep, involved in Case Crime No. 117 of 2019, under Sections- 363, 366, 376-D, 302, 201, 34 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Awagarh, District- Etah, 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.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(ii) 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.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

(v) 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

¶20

Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of 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

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.7.2023 Rohit

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev @ Sandeep v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev @ Sandeep v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Gangadhar Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar @ Sukumar @ Nanhey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajendra Raidas Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankur Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another