Allowed

Sumit @ Laifty v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2023BAIL/35688/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, per Renu Agarwal, J., allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C for an applicant who surfaced in the trial record after investigation, holding he stood on a better footing than a co-accused already on bail, releasing him subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond and two sureties subject to undertakings regarding adjournments, attendance, address change, and property disposal.

Sumit @ Laifty Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169591

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35688 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sumit @ Laifty Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Singh,B.N.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.85 of 2023 under Sections 379, 411, 420 IPC Police Station Siras-Kalar District Jalaun.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to ulterior motive. The applicant was not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant surfaced in the instant case in the statement of co-accused Suraj @ Sooji. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Apart from the instant case the applicant has criminal history of eight cases which have been explained in paragraph-17 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It is further averred that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in five out of eight cases, in

¶9

one case the applicant has been acquitted. The applicant has not

¶10

yet filed bail application in remaining two cases. There is no cogent piece of evidence so as to connect the present applicant with the instant matter. Co-accused Suraj @ Sooji has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33090 of 2023, vide order dated 11.08.2023. It is submitted that the case of the applicant stands on a better footing than that of the co-accused however the applicant seeks parity in relief granted to the co-accused persons. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.04.2023, in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not controvert the aforesaid factual matrix.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account that the applicant was not named in the FIR, the name of the applicant surfaced in the instant case in the statement of coaccused Suraj @ Sooji, nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, Co-accused Suraj @ Sooji has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33090 of 2023, vide order dated 11.08.2023 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the accused-

¶13

applicant on bail.

¶14

The bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let applicant Sumit @ Laifty be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(vi) The applicant shall also give an undertaking to the effect that he will not change his address without prior intimation to the trial court concerned.

¶22

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 23.8.2023 Nadeem

¶24

Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sumit @ Laifty v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit @ Laifty 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

Deepak Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Nath @ Munna Vs State of U.P.

Arun @ Surya Vs State of U.P.

Muinuddin Alias Jummu Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Chandra Tripathi Vs State of U.P.