Allowed

Pravesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2023BAIL/8376/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to the accused in a case involving offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, and 302 IPC. The order was based on overcrowding in jails, uncertainty regarding trial conclusion, and dicta from the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions regarding non-tampering of evidence and court attendance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195319

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8376 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pravesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Singh,A.C.Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharmendra Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Sri A.C.Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

This is second bail application of the applicant.

¶8

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 24.02.2021 by the coordinate Bench of this Court which is not available now.

¶9

The second bail application has been filed on the ground that number of co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail, namely, Vipin, Kaalu @ Kallu, Nirdesh, Surendra and Megha. There is remote possibility of early conclusion of trial.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant submits that the only distinguishing features regarding the applicant is that the recovery of a country made pistol was shown to have made from his pointing out. He has placed before this Court the case diary prepared by the investigating officer which shows that recovery of country made pistol was allegedly made from the applicant but there is no public witness of the same and recovery has been made from the public place.

¶11

Counsel for the applicant also submits that out of 28 prosecution witnesses named in the charge sheet, only two have been examined before the trial Court. The applicant is in jail since 24.02.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit. Trial will take time to conclude.

¶12

On the other hand learned A.G.A and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of the applicant for bail.

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel

¶14

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 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of 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.

¶15

Let the applicant, Pravesh, involved in Case Crime No. 103 of 2021, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302 IPC, Police Station- Sardhana, District- Meerut, 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.

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(iv) 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.

¶20

(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

¶21

be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.

¶25

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within ten days.

¶26

Order Date :- 10.10.2023 Rohit

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pravesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravesh 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

Akeel Ahmad @ Rehan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhananjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Shoib Vs State of U.P.

Awanish Balmiki Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Kumar Kharwar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kiran Singh Vs State of U.P.