Allowed

Arun @ Surya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2023BAIL/34104/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant accused of Snatch Theft under Section 392 IPC. The Court quashed the impugned order, finding false implication due to delay in FIR and lack of recovered evidence. Bail was granted on personal bond and two sureties with specific undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties in like amount with conditions regarding court appearance, property disposal, and address change.

Arun @ Surya Vs State of U.P. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:167443

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34104 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Arun @ Surya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

The present first bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 435 of 2022 under Section 392 I.P.C. Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to malafide intentions. Prosecution version as per the F.I.R. is that on 22.07.2022 at about 6:30 am, the informant was going to her school at Fatehpur Sikari and near Bodala an unknown person snatched her chain and ran away from the place of incident. It is submitted that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of about six days without any satisfactory reason. It is next submitted that the applicant was arrested after 11 months from the date of incident and he was implicated in the case on the basis of confessional statement when he was arrested in case crime No. 261 of 2023 on 22.06.2023. It

¶9

is further submitted that the alleged looted chain was not recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is contended that the applicant is not previously

¶10

convict in any other case, however, after the arrest of the applicant in the present case, he has been falsely implicated in two other cases i.e. case crime No. 299 of 2023 and case crime No. 261 of 2023 and he has been enlarged on bail in both the cases by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34328 of 2023 and the court below respectively. Copy of the bail order passed by the court below is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the bail application. It is further contended that there is no public witness of the arrest and recovery and no test identification parade was conducted. Applicant is languishing in jail since 22.06.2023 and if he is granted the liberty of bail he will not misuse the same and he is ready to furnish his sufficient sureties, bonds and personal bonds.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer of bail but could not controvert the aforesaid arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Considering the fact that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R., alleged looted chain is not recovered from the possession of the applicant, delay in lodging of F.I.R. without any satisfactory explanation, applicant is languishing in jail since 22.06.2023 having no previous criminal history, case is triable by Magistrate and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, accused-applicant is liable to be released on bail.

¶13

Let applicant Arun @ Surya be released on bail in the above case crime number and on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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 proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall also furnish an undertaking from the sureties that the properties (movable/immovable) which are the basis of accepting the surety, shall not be disposed of by them till the conclusion of trial.

¶19

(vi) The applicant shall also give an undertaking to the effect that he will not

¶20

change his address without prior intimation to the trial court concerned.

¶21

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 21.8.2023

¶23

Karan

¶24

Digitally signed by :- KUMAR KARAN RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arun @ Surya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun @ Surya 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

Afzal Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Vs State of U.P.

Lalu Vs State of U.P.

Tinku Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Nath @ Munna Vs State of U.P.