In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court granted bail to the applicant, noting lack of independent witness to recovery, parity with co-accused already on bail, and delay in trial.
Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties, on conditions not to tamper with evidence or witnesses and to appear at trial dates.
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:233152
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52618 of 2023
Applicant :- Sudeep @ Mota Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
4.Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. No recovery as alleged in the first information report was made from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the recovery. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused, Pawan Kashyap @ Katappa and Rahul @ Kabra, have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 38794 of 2022 and 40282 of 2022 vide orders dated 26.09.2022 and 10.10.2022 respectively. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no. 2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 31.07.2022. The trial is moving at snail's pace and is not likely to conclude early. Inordinate delay in concluding the trial has led to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
granted bail by this Court. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. The applicant has remained confined for more than one year and four months. Further, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when 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 intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
i. the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
Order Date :- 8.12.2023 Sachin Mishra
Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on grounds of no independent witness to recovery, parity with co-accused, and indefinite delay in trial.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudeep @ Mota
State of U.P.
Vivek Varma
Sachin Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
