Allowed

Sabi @ Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2023BAIL/7607/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a repeat bail application in a murder case involving conspiracy and death. The court granted bail to the applicant on grounds of parity with co-accused already released, clean antecedents, and prosecution-caused trial delays.

What did the court decide?

Applicant is released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount, subject to conditions including cooperation with trial and non-tampering with witnesses.

Sabi @ Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190407

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7607 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sabi @ Shiv Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Shukla,Abhinav Gaur,Mohd. Rashid Siddiqui,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Anoop Trivedi, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Ankit Shukla and Mr. Abhinav Gaur, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant..

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This is a repeat application for bail filed by applicant-Sabi @ Shiv Kumar seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 520 of 2020 under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 364, 506 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station-Tappal, District-Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

First bail application of applicant was rejected by a detailed order dated 16.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37216 of 2021 (Sabi @ Shiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under:

¶10

" Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for State. learned Counsel for the informant and perused the material available on record.

¶11

Accused-applicant- Sabi @ Shiv Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 520 of 2020, under Sections 147/148/149/302/364/506/120-B IPC, Police Station

¶12

Tappal, District Aligarh, applied for bail.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits in the following manner :-

¶14

(i) Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he has committed no offence.

¶15

(ii) Although the applicant is named in the F.I.R. but he has no concerned with the present case.

¶16

(iii) Deceased was found in injured position in the field of one Kalu near bamba. He was taken to hospital where she died.

¶17

(iv) The informant is not an eye witness.

¶18

(v) As per post-mortem report cause of death is due to coma on account of head injury. Medical evidence does not go with the prosecution case.

¶19

(vi) There is no motive, no intention to the applicant to commit the murder of victim.

¶20

(vii) It is not a case of direct evidence, prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. There is no complete chain of circumstantial evidence.

¶21

(viii) Applicant is in jail since 23.11.2020, having no credible evidence against him.

¶22

(ix) There is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is named in the FIR. There was a dispute in between Vedpal and one Jagveer over electoral rivalry. On 19.09.2020 at about 4:30 p.m. victim Ankush had gone from his house on a telephonically call saying that some one is calling him. On the very same day at about 5:30 p.m. he received a telephonic information that some unknown person, by a Scorpio, threw his son in injured position in the field of one Kalu near bamba. On receiving the information he along with other persons arrived there and found his son in injured position. As per postmortem report 15 injuries were found on the body of deceased, out of them one injury was of fire arm. Although role of firing is assigned to Ramveer

¶24

and Udham, but 14 injuries are of blunt objects. Alleged eye witness Sundar, in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. supported the prosecution case and has given the statement against the applicant.

¶25

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, role of applicant, injuries found on the person of deceased and evidence collected by Investigation Officer. Applicant deserves no bail.

¶26

Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.

¶27

Order Date :- 16.12.2021 "

¶28

From perusal of above order dated 16.12.2021, it is apparent that this Court rejected the bail application of applicant Sabi @ Shiv Kumar on the ground that although role of firing gun shots is assigned to co-accused Ramver and Udham but the deceased sustained 14 injuries which were caused to blunt object.

¶29

Learned senior counsel for applicant submits that after completion of statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.PC., Investigating Offier submitted the police report (charge sheet) dated 21.12.2020 whereby six persons namely Ramveer, Kalwa, Sabi @ Shiv Kumar, Udham, Krishna Kumar and Kaliya @ Naveen have been charge sheeted.

¶30

It is next contended that out of six charge-sheeted accused, four co-accused have already been enlarged on bail. The details of the same are as under:

¶31

i. Co-accused Udham has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.05.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1003 of 2022 (Udham Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 18.05.2022 is reproduced hereinin-under:

¶32

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the material on

¶33

record.

¶34

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 0520 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 364 and 506 IPC, P.S. Tappal, District Aligarh.

¶35

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to FIR version, on 19.09.2020 at 4.30 a call came on the informant's son mobile no. 7055164893 from unknown number on which he went by stating that a boy has called him, at about 5.30 p.m., informant Vinod Kumar, father of the deceased received information on mobile that his son has been thrown from a scorpio in grievous condition on which informant along with many villagers reached the spot where he found him in grievous condition, he was admitted in Kailash hospital, Jewar, where he died during treatment. He further submits that according to FIR, incident was caused by Vedpal, Jagbir in collusion with Ramveer, Kaluwa, Sabi, Chinki, Udham, Dinesh and two unknown companion.Informant's elder brother who was returning from Tappal to the village saw when informant's son was thrown from the Scorpio. He further submits that as per page no.35 deceased was admitted in Kailash Hospital by brother Ved. As per inquest report, information was given to the Police Station at 19.09.2020 at 20.32 hours. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that informant has reiterated the FIR version in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and on asking by Investigating Officer, he has stated that from the place of incident he was taken to Kailash Hospital, Jewar by vehicle of Gaurav along with Gaurav, Bantu, Sonu, Lala and informant took him to Kailash Hospital. As per statement of Anand @ Tinku, he was taken to hospital by vehicle of Ved Talan. He further submits that while he was taking away to hospital then Ankush told him that Krish @ Kaluwa called him to meet when he was on the way at the turning of chauraha, Ramveer, Kaluwa, Sabi, Chinki, Udham, Dinesh and Yogesh son of Vedpal met him and beat him badly by lathi danda, when people started assembling then they put him in the Scorpio of Dinesh and took him near the field of Kaluwa. The statement of alleged witness of the incident Ashok Kumar has been recorded on 06.10.2020, in which he has stated that he saw that Ramveer, Kaluwa, Sabi, Chinki, Udham, Dinesh and a person whose name not known to him were committing marpeet with Ankush and a Scorpio vehicle was also there he heard the sound of fire, and rushed towards the place of incident then he saw country-made pistol in the hand of Ramveer and Udham, who shot his nephew and when he made alarm then they fled away by Scorpio, one Sundar of the village also witnessed the incident and on alarm some people of the village also came. As per statement of Ved Talan, he took away the injured in his vehicle for treatment at Kailash Hospital, Jewar along with Bantu and other people and informant came behind him by motorcycle. As per statement of the informant, he took away the injured by himself from the vehicle of Gaurav along with Gaurav, Bantu, Sonu, Lala. He further submits that Vedpal has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.07.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8826 of 2021, which has been challenged in Special Leave Petition No.21949 of 2021, in which notice was issued to the accused. As per page no.34 of the counter affidavit, bail of Sabi @ Shiv Kumar has been rejected vide order dated 16.12.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37216 of 2021. He further submits that there is contradiction regarding the vehicle by which injured was taken to

¶36

hospital. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that there is no criminal history of the applicant and is languishing in jail since 26.10.2020.

¶37

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submit that it is admitted fact that there was enmity due to panchayat election, brutal murder has been committed and as per post mortem report, ten injuries have been found. Informant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court against grant of bail of co-accused Vedpal in which notice has been issued to the accused and bail application of Sabi @ Shiv Kumar has been rejected by this Court. As per page no.38 of the counter affidavit, Inspector Dharmendra Pawar and SubInspector Satendra Sharma has been found guilty in the enquiry having contact with the accused persons and departmental proceeding is going on. Deceased was taken by the witness Ved Talan to the hospital at that time he stated that applicant and co-accused beat him badly by lathi danda. Ramveer and Udham by shooting and throwing him fled away. In the statement of Anand, Bantu and Ved Talan, there is no contradictioin. He further submits that there is specific allegation of firing against the applicant and Ramveer and country-made pistol used in the incident has also been recovered on his pointing out. Gaurav Kumar has stated that near the main gate of Vedpal in the varandah, some persons were sitting, he saw and heard that Vedpal, Ramveer, Udham, Chinki, Sabi, Kaluwa, Jagatpal and Dinesh son of Vedpal were sitting and talking that Chinki has been beaten very badly in Jewar and revenge of it is necessary, thereafter, incident has been caused. Thus, there is evidence of conspiracy against the applicant. It is further submitted that recovery of country-made pistol has been made from the possession of the applicant on the pointing out of the applicant but this fact has been concealed and recovery memo has not been annexed by the applicant along with bail application. He further submits that as per para 13 of the bail application, there was no enmity but as per page no.53 of the counter affidavit, an FIR has been lodged by Thakur @ Chinki (real brother of the applicant) against seven persons including the deceased, i.e., Case Crime No.416 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 IPC, therefore, the averment is false. As per para 20 of the bail application, according to opinion of panches, deceased died due to taking poison but as per F.I.R. deceased has died due to injuries and application for cancellation of bail is pending before the Supreme Court and bail application of co-accused has been rejected and witnesses are being threatened, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶38

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as per FIR incident was caused by Vedpal and Jagbir in collusion with applicant and others, as per statement of Ashok Kumar, applicant and Ramveer had country-made pistol in their hand, who saw his nephew, as per post mortem report, single fire arm injury found, contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses with regard to taking away the deceased from the spot to hospital by vehicle of Gaurav and Ved Talan, recording of statement of Ashok Kumar after 15 days as well as enlargement of co-accused Vedpal on bail, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for

¶39

bail, let the applicant- Udham involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶40

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶41

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶42

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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.

¶43

(iv) 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) 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. 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.

¶44

Order Date :- 18.5.2022 "

¶45

ii. Co-accused Ved Pal and Krishna Kumar have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8826 of 2021 (Ved Pal and another Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 26.07.2021 is reproduced hereinin-under:

¶46

"Heard Shri Apul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Kapil Kumar and Ms. Sandhya Singh as well as Shri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶47

Since these bail applications arise out of same case crime number, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.

¶48

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have not committed the present offence. Only role for hatching conspiracy has been assigned to the applicants. There is no direct evidence to establish the

¶49

ingredients of offence under Section 120-B IPC. It is further submitted that son of applicant Ved Pal, against whom allegation was also levelled, has been exonerated during investigation. Applicants have been implicated in this case due to village rivalry. Co-accused Krishna Kumar was not named in the F.I.R.. He has been implicated in this case on the basis of call details but same is not sufficient to connect him with the present matter taking recourse to the provisions of Section 120-B IPC. What conversation was made between the applicant Krishna Kumar and the person who received the calls, is not clear from the record. Recovery is false and planted. Referring to contents of F.I.R. it is also submitted that though vehicle Scorpio has been mentioned in the F.I.R. yet vehicle Swift has been recovered in the matter. On this count also involvement of applicants in this matter is doubtful.

¶50

Applicants have no criminal history. They are languishing in jail since 27.9.2020 and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶51

On the other hand, learned counsel for informant as well as the learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that vehicle Scorpio has not been recovered till today yet applicants were involved in this case hatching conspiracy, which is corroborated by the call details. Mobile number disclosed in the F.I.R. and in the evidence collected during investigation belongs to the applicant Krishna Kumar, on which a number of occasion call was made. There is also statement of deceased to the witness Ved when he was being taken to hospital, which will be treated as dying declaration. A prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶52

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused, particularly this fact that there is contradiction/ difference in vehicle details, nothing is on record to show the actual conversation made between the applicants and the deceased and also taking into the consideration that nothing was mentioned in the F.I.R. regarding statement of deceased made to Ved, who was carrying the deceased to hospital, and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail applications are allowed.

¶53

Let the applicants Ved Pal and Krishna Kumar� involved in Case Crime No. 520 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 364, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Tappal, District - Aligarh be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶54

1. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶55

2. The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶56

3. The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶57

4. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of

¶58

which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶59

5. The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶60

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶61

The party shall file self attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad. The concerned Court / Authority / Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶62

Order Date :- 26.7.2021 "

¶63

iii. Co-accused Kalwa @ Naveen has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.06.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24925 of 2022 (Kalwa @ Naveen Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 27.06.2022 is reproduced hereinin-under:

¶64

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶65

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Kalwa @ Naveen, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0520 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B and 506 IPC, P.S. Tappal, District Aligarh during pendency of trial.

¶66

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the co-accused, Udham, has been granted bail by this Court on 18.5.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1003 of 2022. The case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.11.2020.

¶67

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail, but does not dispute the claim of parity.

¶68

Let the applicant involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶69

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶70

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not 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.

¶71

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

¶72

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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.

¶73

(v) 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) 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.

¶74

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶75

Order Date :- 27.6.2022 "

¶76

The learned Senior Counsel submits that in the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon cause of death of deceased was comma as a result of head injury. However, author of the head injury have been identified as Ramveer and Udham whereas Udham has already been enlarged on bail. Apart from above, co-accused Bedpal, Kalwa and Krishna Kumar have also been enlarged on bail. The case of present applicant is similar and identical to aforesaid coaccused, who have already been enlarged on bail. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which the case of present applicant could be so disgtinguished from aforesaid co-accused so as to deny him bail. He therefore contends that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail orders of co-

¶77

accused, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶78

10.It is then contended that after submission of charge sheet dated 21.12.2020 cognizance was taken upon same by concerned Magistrate vide cognizance taking order dated 23.12.2020. However the offence complained of is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. Resultantly, concerned Magistrate committed the case to Court of Sessions. As a result, Sessions Trial No. 1135of 2021 (State Vs. Bedpal and others) came to be registered. In spite of the fact that a period of almost three years has rolled by from the date of submission of charge sheet, only three prosecution witnesses namely P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.-3 have been deposed before court below till date. Since applicant is in custody, therefore, he cannot be said to be responsible for the delay in the conclusion of trial. He has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in in A.R. Antulay Vs. R. S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225 .. With reference to above he submits that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused. Since the applicant is in custody therefore he cannot be held responsible for the delay in conclusion of trial. As such, it cannot be said that there is delay in the progress of trial on account applicant but rather on account of the of lackadaisical approach of the prosecution.On the cumulative strength of above, it is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. On the above premise, the leaned senior counsel for applicant contends that no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 23.11.2020. As such he has undergone more than two years and eleven months of incarceration. Police report (charge-sheet) in

¶79

terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, therefore the entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. Upto this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶80

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed this repeat application for bail. They submit that since the applicant is a named as well as charge-sheet accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The deceased sustained as many as 15 ante mortem injuries on his body. Charge sheet has been submitted against accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B I.P.C. It is thus urged that an unlawful assembly was formed with a common object with the element of conspiracy to cause death of the deceased. Criminality committed by named accused is joint and common. As such the same is incapable of separation and segregation. As such no exception can be carved out in the case of present applicant. On the cumulative strength of above, they submit that no sympathy be shown by this court in favour of applicant.

¶81

Having heard the learned senior counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel for first informant, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that as per charge sheet dated 21.12.2020 six accused have been charge-sheeted, out of the six charge-sheeted accused, four charge sheeted accused have already been enlarged on bail, bail

¶82

application of two of the charge sheeted accused have been rejected. Role of causing fatal gun shot injury has been assigned to co-accused Ramveer and Udham whereas Udham has already been enlarged on bail, case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of other co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail , there is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be so distinguished from the aforesaid bailed out co-accused and other three co-accused so as to deny him bail, clean antecedents of applicant, period of incarceration undergone, in spite of the fact the case was committed to the court of sessions in the year 2021 and a period of three years has rolled by only three prosecution witnesses have been adduced by the prosecution upto this stage, applicant cannot be held responsible for the delay in conclusion of trial as he is in jail, right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in in A.R. Antulay Vs. R. S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225 , though the charge sheet has been submitted agaisnt applicant and therefore the entirre evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised, yet upto this stage no such circumstance could be pointed out by learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhash Chandra Gangawal and another Vs. State113 of Maharashtra and another 2023 Live Law SC 373 therefore irrespective of the objections raised by learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant in opposition to the present application for abil but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶83

Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed.

¶84

Let the applicant- Sabi @ Shiv Kumar involved in aforesaid

¶85

case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶86

(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶87

(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶88

(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶89

(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶90

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send him to prison

¶91

Order Date :- 4.10.2023 YK

¶92

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

Sabi @ Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabi @ Shiv Kumar 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

Kurendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Munnesh Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Imran Anshari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satyaveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Jyoti Vs State of U.P.

Atul Rai @ Sintu Vs State of U.P.