Dismissed

Subhash v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2023BAIL/59882/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In_CrM_Bail_APN_59882_of_2022, the Court rejected a bail application filed by the applicant, Subhash, who absconded after being released on bail in 2007 and only surrendered in 2022. The Court noted the applicant's 15-year absence, lack of credible explanation, criminal history, and likelihood of re-abscondance.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Applicant not entitled to release on bail.

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

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59882 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Subhash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sarveshi Prasad Advocate holding brief on behalf of Sri Devendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 124 of 2007, under Sections 308, 323, 325, 504, 506, 452 IPC, Police StationChandauli, District- Chandauli, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶7

In the present matter applicant was released on bail in the year 2007 and thereafter he appeared on 3.12.2022 i.e. after about 15 years and when he applied for bail then his bail application was dismissed by the court concerned.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is not an absconder and he had gone to Mumbai for his livelihood and he was not having any intention to avoid the proceedings of the case. He further submitted that applicant engaged Sri Ashok Kumar Singh Advocate as his counsel but unfortunately he died and due to which he could not receive any information with regard to the status of the present case, therefore, he could not appear before the court concerned and in the mean time warrants have been issued against him and as soon as he came to know that coercive measures have been taken against him then he immediately surrendered before the court concerned on 3.12.2022. He further submitted that in paragraph no. 3 of the supplementary affidavit, applicant has given an undertaking that if he will be released on bail then he will not seek any adjournment on the date fixed and he will also remain present before the Trial Court on each date and therefore, applicant may be released on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is an absconder who absconded for last about 15 years and from several years

¶10

warrants were being continuously issued against him but he could appear before the court concerned only on 3.12.2022 i.e. after about 15 years and due to his absence trial of the court could not be concluded till date. Learned AGA further submitted that applicant is having criminal history of 18 other cases and in all other cases trial is pending due to non cooperation of the applicant, therefore, considering the period of abscondance of the applicant he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶12

It is a case in which, applicant absconded after released on bail. From perusal of the record it appears that FIR of the present matter was registered in the year 2007 under Section 308, 323, 525, 504, 506, 452 IPC and thereafter applicant was released on bail on 17.9.2007 and after released on bail however, it appears that he attended the Court for sometime but thereafter he neither appeared before the Court concerned nor his counsel attended the Court and therefore, Court had to issue NBW against him and even after NBW he did not appear and he only surrendered before the Court concerned on 3.12.2022 i.e. after about 15 years from the date of release on bail.

¶13

Although, applicant tried to explain his abscondance in paragraph no. 2 and 3 of the supplementary affidavit but from perusal of the paragraph no. 2 and 3 of the supplementary affidavit and from the perusal of the bail application it appears that very casually applicant stated that he had gone to Mumbai for his livelihood, neither any date was mentioned nor any place of his livelihood where he worked is mentioned. It also appears that in paragraph no. 8 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been mentioned that due to death of his counsel Ashok Kumar Singh, applicant could not become aware about the status of the trial but this averment was also made very casually, neither date of death of his counsel is mentioned nor it is mentioned that how he became aware about the coercive measures which were continuously being taken against him.

¶14

It is a case in which applicant appeared before the Court concerned after about 15 years and from perusal of the ordersheet it appears that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and 83 Cr.P.C. were also issued against him and he is also having criminal history of 18 cases, therefore, there is every possibility that if he will be released on bail then he will again abscond.

¶15

Therefore, from the discussion made above, in my view

¶16

applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Accordingly the instant bail application is rejected.

¶18

Order Date :- 6.2.2023

¶19

KK Patel

¶20

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

Subhash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajveer Vs Union Of India

Gaurav Alias Gaura Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ali Husain @ Ali Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Ganesh Chaubey @ Ganesh Pandit Vs State of U.P.