Allowed

Surendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2023BAIL/53783/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed. The Court found the applicant made a case for bail despite allegations of misconduct. Bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions regarding evidence tampering and court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of presence and non-tampering with evidence.

Surendra Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:238213

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53783 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Surendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Virpratap Singh,Ranjeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.85 of 2023, under Sections 379 and 411 I.P.C., Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He is not named in the FIR. His name has come up later on in the statement of arrested co-accused persons, namely, Raghvendra, Pradeep and Anshul, which is not admissible in evidence. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.05.2023. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained except twelve cases foisted on him at the time of arrest of the co-accused persons in the instant case. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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.

¶12

Let the applicant- Surendra , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is 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 him in accordance with law.

¶15

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

¶16

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.12.2023 Ravi Kant

¶18

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶19

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

Surendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra 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

Brijbhushan @ Gullu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Sharif Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kishor Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deva and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramji Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Golu @ Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P.