Allowed

Subhash v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023BAIL/35929/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous bail application arose from a suicide abetment case. The court noted substantiality of applicant's claim regarding false FIR timing and jail overcrowding. Relying on Article 21 and Apex Court dicta, the court allowed bail without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering, training cooperation, and attendance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170815

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35929 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Subhash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Bahadur

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Second supplementary afÏdavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Vijay Bahadur, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Subhash , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 490 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC Police Station Khair, District- Aligarh, during pendency of trial.

¶9

There is allegation in the First Information Report that applicant alongwith other co-accused named in the First Information Report abetted suicide of deceased.It is alleged in First Information Report that deceased was labour and amount of Rs.50,000/of the deceased was due on the accused persons. On 13.5.2022 his mother directed him to bring some money then he informed her that his Rs. 50,000/was due towards the applicant, Subhash. Thereafter on on 18.5.2022 he was called by the co-accused persons to the house of the applicant and he never returned.His dead body was recovered outside the house of the informant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that First Information Report has been lodged after about three months of the incident implicating the applicant and other co-accused for abetting the suicide of the deceased.Dead body of the deceased was discovered by village Chowkidar. His dead body was brought down by four boys called by the village,

¶11

Chowkidar.The allegations in the First Information Report are absolutely false. There is no direct evidence of the aforesaid incident. The applicant is in jail since 14.6.2023. He has criminal history of one case, which has been explained in paragraph-3 of the second supplementary afÏdavit.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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 ofÏcer;

¶19

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.

¶20

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 sufÏcient 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 24.8.2023

¶23

Atul kr. sri.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Subhash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pintu Vs State of U.P.

Akhand Pratap Singh @ Saurabh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalwa Vs State of U.P.

Rukmini Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another