Allowed

Shri Kishan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2023BAIL/57390/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single member bench allowed a second bail application filed by an under-trial accused in a Section 304 IPC case. Relying on Satendra Kumar Antil and concerns over jail overcrowding and the right to speedy trial, the court granted bail in the interest of justice as the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

What did the court decide?

The applicant must furnish a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to specific conditions including no tampering and ensuring the trial c

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57390 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shri Kishan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Parmar,Hariom Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Shri Kishan, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 495 of 2018, under Section 304 IPC Police Station Sumerpur, DistrictHamirpur, during pendency of trial.

¶7

This is the second bail application.The first bail application was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 6.8.2019.Since two years have passed, the case is listed before this Court as per order dated 27.4.2022 of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that only four witnesses out of nine witnesses have been examined.Even otherwise implication of the applicant is only under section 304 I.P.C.The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. The applicant is in jail since 28.11.2018 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

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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;

¶17

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the 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)

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

In case the trial has commenced, the trial court will conclude the same within a period one year as per section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.2.2023 Atul kr. sri.

¶23

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

Shri Kishan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kishan 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

Pankaj Kumar Baghel Vs State of U.P.

Dheeraj Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P.

Raju Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Utkarsh @ Sarthak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others