Allowed

Amit Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2023BAIL/20474/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to Amit Singh, a charge-sheeted accused representing a hospital, in a case under Sections 304, 420, and 10B IPC. The court noted he is not a doctor, has clean antecedents, and has already spent over three months in jail. No circumstances necessitated continued custody.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Amit Singh to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding trial attendance.

Amit Singh Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165613

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20474 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Amit Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Umesh Chandra Tiwari, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Amit Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 263 of 2022, under Sections 304, 420, 10B IPC and Section 15(2)(B) I.M.C. Act, Police Station- Nagra, District Ballia during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 16.8.20222 a delayed F.I.R. dated 29.8.2022 was lodged by first informant- Dr. Rahul Singh and was registered as Case Crime No. 263 of 2022, under Sections 304, 420, 10B IPC and Section 15(2)(B) I.M.C. Act, Police StationNagra, District Baliya. In the aforesaid F.I.R. eleven persons namely, Dr. Amit Singh, Dr. Shashikala, Omprakash Yadav, Deventi Devi, Piki, Vibha Chauhan, Kiran Maurya, Rajendra Prasad, Anil Kumar Prajapati, Tara Devi, Pushpa Devi have been nominated as named accused.

¶10

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant contends that after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet dated 13.4.2023, whereby four of the named accused, namely, Amit Singh, Omprakash Yadav, Tara Devi, Piki have been charge-sheeted, whereas other named accused have been exculpated. Three of the other charge sheeted accused have already been enlarged on bail by Court below itself. Referring to the averments made in paragraph 7 of the affidavit, filed in support of the bail application, he submits that applicant is not a Doctor by profession. He is an employee of Shivlok Hospital Lakhanpur Rasara, run by Dr. Sharad Bharadwaj., As such, no criminality can be attributed to the applicant.

¶11

Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 17.3.2023. As such, he has undergone more than three months of incarceration. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial. Police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. However, upto this stage, no such, circumstances has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. It is then urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial.

¶12

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record at this stage.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that applicant is not a Doctor by profession, a Applicant is simply an employee of Shivlok Hospital Lakhanpur Rasara, run by Dr. Sharad Bharadwaj, the police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against applicants stands crystalized, inspite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating custodial arrest of applicant during pendency of trial, the period of incarceration undergone, the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 373 (paragraph 5), have already been enlarged on bail the clean antecedents of applicant, similarly situate co-accused, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Amit Singh , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and

¶16

two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶18

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶19

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶20

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶21

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶22

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.8.2023

¶24

Arshad

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Singh 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

Anis @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Porwal Vs State of U.P.

Bade @ Satish Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Azad Khan Vs State of U.P.

Osama Vs State of U.P.

Sadik Nadeem @ Mohd. Nadeem Vs State of U.P.