Allowed

Suraj Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023BAIL/33674/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed this bail application filed by Suraj Pratap Singh, a named and charge-sheeted accused. The Court held that since co-accused were released on bail, the entire prosecution evidence had crystallized via the charge sheet, and no distinct grounds existed for continuing the applicant's custody.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Suraj Pratap Singh was enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering, seeking adjournments, and appearing in court.

Suraj Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171267

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33674 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Suraj Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Singh Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Pawan Singh Pundir the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Suraj Pratap Singh eeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 46 of 2023, under Sections 304, 323, 324 and 504 IPC, P.S. Talgram, District Kannauj, during the pendency of trial. Perused the record.

¶8

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 26.2.2023, a prompt F.I.R. dated 26.2.2023 was lodged by first informant Santosh Kumar and was registered as Case Crime No. 46 of 2023, under Sections 304, 323, 324 and 504 IPC, P.S. Talgram, District Kannauj. In the aforesaid F.I.R., two persons namely Suraj Pratap Singh (applicant herein) and Krishna Pratap Singh have been nominated as named accused.

¶9

At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant contends that co-accused Krishna Pratap Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Cour, vide order dated 13.7.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26763 of 2023 (Krishna Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under:-

¶10

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Jag Narayan, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

¶11

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Kishan Pratap Singh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 46 of 2023, under Sections 304,323,324,504 IPC Police Station Talgram, District- Kannauj, during pendency of trial.

¶12

There is allegation against the applicant of causing offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, beating and threatening of one person alongwith co-accused, who is his brother.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that dispute took place all of sudden,applicant and co-accused are alleged to have caused injury by Kutfori( Iron utensil used for collecting cow dung in the village)since it is a sharp edged weapon.Injury was caused on nose and elbow of the deceased.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that two persons have been implicated for causing injury by sharp edged weapon.It is not clear who is the author of the injury. The offence alleged will not travel beyond section 304-II I.P.C.. The applicant is in jail since 11.3.2023.He has criminal history of one case which has been explained in paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶13

Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that applicant has criminal history 2-3 cases but he is unable to produce the same.

¶14

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

¶15

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 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

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

4. 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 officer;

¶21

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

¶22

6. 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 sufficient 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.

¶23

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

¶24

Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused along with co-accused, inasmuch as charge sheet has been submitted against applicant and another on 19.4.2023 yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. The occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred on grave and sudden provocation and on the spur of moment. As such, the same is covered under the IVth exception of Section 300 IPC. There is no calculated mens rea with the applicant to commit the crime in question. Co-accused who is similarly situate and circumstanced as the applicant has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. The role of causing fatal injury which caused the death of the deceased is assigned to both the accused. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which, the case of the present applicant can be so distinguish from bailed out co-accused so as to deny bail to the present applicant. It is thus urged that in view of above and the facts and reasons recorded in the bail order of coaccused, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant is in jail since 09.03.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 5 months of incarceration. Applicant has criminal history of one case, which is duly explained in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. i.e. charge sheet has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized upto this stage. No such circumstance has emerged on the basis of which, it can be said that

¶25

the custodial arrest of applicant is absolutely necessary during the pendency of trial. 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 the trial.

¶26

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. Criminality committed by named/charge sheeted accused is joint and common, therefore, same is incapable of separation or segregation. Attention of the Court was then invited to the confessional statement of the applicant, which is on record at page 50 of the paper book and on basis thereof it is urged that in the aforesaid confessional statement, the applicant has himself admitted of hearing has caused the fatal injury on the head of the deceased. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state, the learned counsel for first informant, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that co-accused who is similarly situate and circumstanced like applicant has already been enlarged on bail, there is no such distinguishing feature upto this stage, on the basis of which, the case of the present applicant could be so distinguished from aforementioned coaccused, so as to deny him bail, the confessional made by the accused is a very weak piece of evidence, this exercise to prove the same can be taken only during the course of trial, the criminal history of applicant stands explained, the period of incarceration undergone, the police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. i.e. charge sheet has already been submitted, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet no such circumstance could be pointed out by the learned A.G.A. from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶28

Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶29

Let the applicant Suraj Pratap Singh involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his/her/their furnishing a personal bond with 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 :-

¶30

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶31

(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 I.P.C..

¶32

(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., 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶33

(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 him in accordance with law.

¶34

(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.

¶35

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his 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.

¶36

Order Date :- 24.8.2023 HSM

¶37

Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Pratap 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

M/S. Sophisticated Industrial Materials Vs M/S. U.P. State Industrial Development Authority and Another

Aman Singh Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Yadav @ Kandu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek @ Rahul Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Danveer Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek Singh @ Honey Vs State of U.P.