Allowed

Satish and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2023BAIL/6576/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to applicants Satish and Shubham Lawaniya charged under Sections 307 and 506 IPC. Considering overcrowding in jails and fundamental right to speedy trial, the Court imposed strict conditions including presence for specific hearings and restrictions on seeking adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to strict conditions regarding presence and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6576 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Satish And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Sharvan Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. Applicants were generally implicated for committing offence attempt to murder and threatening along with five other co-accused persons.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in statement of the injured he has not assigned role to the applicants and two co-accused, namely, Dinesh & Mahesh, who have already been enlarged on bail in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.46009 of 2022. Applicant nos.1 & 2 are in jail since 23.09.2022 and 13.12.2022 respectively. Applicant no.1 has criminal history of one case and applicant no.2 has criminal history of three cases explained in the supplementary affidavit and the bail application.

¶7

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.

¶8

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 applicants; 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 of the Constitution of India and 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 and 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.

¶9

Let the applicants, Satish & Shubham alias Shivam Lawaniya, involved in Case Crime No.176 of 2020, under Sections 307 & 506 I.P.C, Police Station Mursan, District- Hathras be released on bail on their 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.

¶10

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not

¶11

seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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.

¶12

(iii) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iv) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(v) The applicants 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) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicants are 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 them in accordance with law.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶16

Identity and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted

¶17

Order Date :- 14.3.2023 SS

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satish and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish and Another 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

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Satendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Lallan Patel Vs State of U.P.

Shushma Vs State of U.P.

Harveer Vs State of U.P.

Anup Kumar Jaiswal @ Shethi Vs State of U.P.