Allowed

Hari Shanker Singh @ Golu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2023BAIL/43674/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. finding that the recovered mobile phone lacked independent witness corroboration and could not be connected to the offence, and noting the delay in trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail with personal bond and two sureties on conditions to appear and not tamper with evidence.

Hari Shanker Singh @ Golu Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:198094

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43674 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Hari Shanker Singh @ Golu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 99 of 2023, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Dheena, District Chandauli during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. In the first information report IMEI number of the alleged mobile phone was not mentioned. The applicant was arrested on 10.09.2023 and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of a mobile phone has been shown from the applicant and the said mobile phone cannot be connected with the offence. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-12 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 10.09.2023 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery and the recovered mobile phone cannot be connected with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than one month and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or

¶11

intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Hari Shanker Singh @ Golu, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶13

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶14

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

¶15

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.10.2023 SKT/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hari Shanker Singh @ Golu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Shanker Singh @ Golu 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

Syed Imtiyaz Hussain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kashayap Vs State of U.P.

Arif .and Another Vs State of U.P.

Narad Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Singh Kansana and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Bishan Singh Vs State of U.P.