Allowed

Shyam Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2023BAIL/43153/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to three applicants involved in a criminal case under Sections 323, 504, and 304 IPC, relying on parity with a co-accused. Bail was subject to personal bond, sureties, and specific conditions regarding evidence tampering, witness availability, and court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to specific conditions regarding evidence, witnesses, and court attendance.

Shyam Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195759

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43153 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shyam Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramdhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Shyam Singh, Madan Lal and Ajay, with a prayer to release their on bail in Case Crime No. 309 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 304 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Etah , during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the coaccused, Ramroop, has been granted bail by this Court on 21.9.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38193 of 2023. The case of the applicants stand on identical footing, hence the applicants are also entitled for bail on the ground of parity for the reasons given in bail application of co-accused. The applicants are languishing in jail since 13.7.2023.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but does not dispute the claim of parity.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 , and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶11

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

¶12

(ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶13

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

¶14

(iv) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against their in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(v) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 their in accordance with law.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 11.10.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shyam Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Singh and 2 Others 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

Awanish Balmiki Vs State of U.P.

Pravesh Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Kumar Kharwar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Baba @ Iqbal Khan Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Singh Vs State of U.P.

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