Allowed

Patara @ Uday Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2023BAIL/426/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to an under-trial applicant charged under Section 307 IPC who had absconded and was in jail since 2022. The court emphasized Article 21, speedy trial, and jail overcrowding, directing the trial court to conclude the trial within six months without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions to ensure presence and cooperation with the trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 426 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Patara @ Uday Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

The applicant was earlier enlarged on bail by the Court below on 17.05.2010. He appeared before the trial Court up to year 2020. He absconded from the proceedings thereafter. The applicant went in search of job to Gujarat and could not get leave to appear before the Court. The applicant is in jail since 13.10.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit.He has appeared before this Court after issuance of non-bailable warrant.

¶8

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

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 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.

¶10

Let the applicant, Patara @ Uday Pratap Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 83 of 2010, under Section- 307 IPC, Police StationMalawan, District- Etah, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the

¶11

satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶13

(ii) 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.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) 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.

¶16

(v) 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.

¶17

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

¶18

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶20

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within a week.

¶21

Order Date :- 12.4.2023 Rohit

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Patara @ Uday Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patara @ Uday 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Bhar Vs State of U.P.

Monu Vs State of U.P.

Jeetu Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bramhanand Pal Vs State of U.P.

Kasif Vs State of U.P.

Gautam Sah Vs State of U.P.