High Court allowed bail application for applicant alleging discrepancy between FIR assault charges and medical injury report of firearm injury. Court held criminal antecedents insufficient to deny bail where no risk of tampering shown.
Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:223993
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44301 of 2023
Applicant :- Varan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Pandey,Achyuta Nand Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Sharan Tripathi,Vijay Kumar
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
4-A. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.
antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:-
" We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked. "
thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.
i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
v. 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.
vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.
Order Date :- 28.11.2023 VMA
Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an applicant with criminal antecedents where injury evidence supports the opposing narrative.
Whether mere pendency of criminal cases or criminal history justifies denial of bail under Article 21.
Whether the applicant is likely to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj SinghReferred¶13
Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 · Who else cites this
Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶15
Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 · Who else cites this
Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. CBIReferred¶17
Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 · Who else cites this
Varan Singh
State of U.P.
Vikram D. Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
