Allowed

Sharad Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2023BAIL/44216/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by a charged driver in a murder case. The court granted bail citing the applicant's lack of prior criminal history, jail overcrowding, and uncertainty about trial conclusion, relying on a recent Supreme Court dictum.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on a personal bond and two sureties on conditions including non-interference with witnesses and cooperation in the trial.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:210045

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44216 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tarun Jha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sharad Kumar, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 281 of 2023, under Sections 323,342,302,201,120-B, 34 IPC Police Station Sipri Bazar, District- Jhansi, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation in the First Information Report that deceased, son of the informant, was having illicit relationship with wife of co-accused, Awadesh. He used to meet the aforesaid lady. On the date of incident he went to house of co-accused, Awadesh and was seen by co-accused, Awadesh and others .Thereafter co-accused, Awadesh called the coaccused, Ram Swaroop and Mayank, father and brother of his wife, who caused the murder of the deceased.Subsequently dead body of the deceased was recovered from the open place. Co-accused, Ram Swaroop and Mayank, have confessed that they have committed the murder of the deceased.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is only driver of co-accused, Ramswaroop.He has been falsely implicated in this case.He had no enmity with deceased. He had no illicit relationship with the lady.No incriminating article was recovered from the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 6.7.2023 and has no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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;

¶16

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 2.11.2023

¶21

Atul kr. sri.

¶22

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

Sharad Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharad Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faizan Vs State of U.P.

Abid Vs State of U.P.

Ajit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Awadhesh @ Awadhu Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravi Kumar @ Raj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others