Banti Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 92

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 943 of 2023

Applicant :- Banti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiva Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Banti with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 122 of 2022, under Sections 394 and 411 I.P.C. Police Station-Babri, District-Shamli, during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

As per version as unfolded in the first information report which has been lodged on 2nd July, 2022, on 2nd July, 2022 at about 12.30 a.m. (intervening night) when the informant and his wife were sleeping at an open place at her house, one unknown person came and snatched ear-ring and a Tabeez of the wife of the informant due to which she sustained injuries in her ear.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present first information report has been lodged against unknown persons. It is only after 16th July, 2022 i.e. after fourteen days from the date of incident, on the information given by a Police Informer that the applicant might be involved in the present case, the Police has arrested the applicant showing a false recovery of Tabeez, when as a matter of fact that same is not related to the applicant has been planted by the Police. On the basis of confessional statement of the applicant given before the Police he has been implicated in the present case. Such confessional statement has no evidentiary value as per Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no independent or public witness of the alleged recovery. No test identification parade has been done by the Investigating Officer from the informant or his wife for establishing that the alleged recovery Tabeez is the one which has been snatched from her or it is the applicant who has snatched the same from the wife of the informant. The applicant has two other criminal history except the present one but the same has satisfactorily been explained in pargraph-24 of the affidavit accompanying the present bail application. It is next contended that 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. The applicant is in jail since 16th July, 2022.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the

¶10

applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant 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:-

¶12

(i) 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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶17

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 13.1.2023 Sushil/-

¶19

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

Banti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Shubham Malviya Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Rukhsar Vs State of U.P.

Happu Chauhan Alias Premveer Singh Vs State of U.P.