Allowed

Shiva v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2024/10890/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal trial. Considering his innocence claim, lack of prior record, and a co-accused grant of bail, the court held it fit for bail under Article 21, setting strict conditions regarding court appearance and witness interaction.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding court appearance and non-tampering with evidence.

Shiva Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77090

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10890 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shiva Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vyas Narayan Shukla,Vikas Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.0046 of 2022, under sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506, 427 & 308 IPC, Police Station- Nawabganj, DistrictPratapgarh.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He next added that the general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the present applicant as it is apparent from the first information report. He also submits that even in the statement of the injured no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. He also added that the applicant has no previous criminal history and charge sheet has been filed, therefore, there is no possibility that he will flee away from the investigation proceedings. He next submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.08.2024. Further submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

He added that the identically situated co-accused namely Deepak has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9465 of 2024 vide order dated 20.11.2024 and the applicant is seeking parity of the aforesaid order.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the first information report and thus, he is not entitled for any relief but he could not dispute the fact the identically

¶11

situated co-accused named-above has already been enlarged on bail.

¶12

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.08.2024; identically situated coaccused namely Deepak has already been enlarged on bail; there is no criminal history of the applicant coupled with the fact that the the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Shiva, involved in the aforementioned crime 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, with the following conditions:-

¶15

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶16

(2) 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. He 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;

¶17

(3) 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.; and

¶18

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 21.11.2024 (Manoj K.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiva v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiva v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Amit Chand Yadav Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Kamla Maghar Vs Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Officer Pankaj Dubey,N.C.B.,Lko.

Sonam Chisti @ Sonam Kinnar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ranjeet Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow

Maiku Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.