Allowed¶15

Sandeep Sahu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2024/1651/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sandeep Sahu bail allowed; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 1651 of 2024; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench (2024:AHC-LKO:15751); Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; order dated 21.2.2024; Case Crime No. 317/2013; Sections 376/511/506 IPC; attempt to commit rape; P.S. Thakurganj, District Lucknow; arrest on NBW dated 22.12.2023 after earlier Sessions Court bail; victim examined; no criminal antecedents; conditions incl. S. 229-A IPC, S. 82 Cr.P.C., S. 174-A IPC.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; applicant Sandeep Sahu to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (i)-(vi) imposed in the interest of justice. ¶15

Sandeep Sahu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Sandeep Sahu, arrested on 22.12.2023 pursuant to non-bailable warrants in Case Crime No. 317/2013 (Ss. 376/511/506 IPC, P.S. Thakurganj, Lucknow) after earlier release on bail by the Sessions Court, should be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Court's answer

Considering that the victim has been examined before the trial court, there is no chance of tampering with evidence, and the applicant has been in jail since 22.12.2023 without any criminal antecedent, the court found it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail, expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶16

Key takeaways

Bail is subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of prosecution witnesses, no inducement/threat/promise to dissuade disclosure, an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, and presence before the trial court on each date; in case of misuse of bail and failure to appear after proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the trial court is to initiate proceedings under Section 174-A IPC (and may proceed under Section 229-A IPC for absence).ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — attempt to rape case (Ss. 376/511/506 IPC, Case Crime No. 317/2013, P.S. Thakurganj, District Lucknow). Applicant, earlier enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court and present at framing of charge, was arrested on 22.12.2023 pursuant to non-bailable warrants issued after he missed a trial date owing to a covid-related communication lapse. With the victim already examined, no chance of tampering with evidence, incarceration since 22.12.2023 and no criminal antecedents, the Court enlarged the applicant on bail on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits, subject to conditions against tampering/intimidation, an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, and presence on each trial date, with warnings of proceedings under S. 229-A IPC and, upon misuse and failure to appear after proclamation under S. 82 Cr.P.C., under S. 174-A IPC. (Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; order dated 21.2.2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15751

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1651 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Sahu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Nag,Kashi Prasad Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J .

¶7

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

¶8

It is alleged in the prosecution case that in the intervening night of 7/8-05.2023 at about 1:00 pm, the accused-applicant entered in the house where she was sleeping with her sister and by putting pistol, the accused compelled her to undress and made attempt to commit rape upon her.

¶9

It has been further submitted that initially he was enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court. The copy of the order is on record as Annexure No. 2 to the bail application. It is further submitted that he cooperated in the trial; he was present during framing of charge, however, due to covid, he could not be informed by his counsel about the listing of the case and consequently, nonbailable warrants have been issued and the applicant has been arrested on 22.12.2023.

¶10

It has been further submitted that the prosecution story is highly improbable. There was no occasion for the applicant to intrude into the house of the victim while she was sleeping with her sister. There is no corroborative evidence in support of the prosecution story.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.12.2023 without having any criminal antecedent there

¶12

is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

On due consideration to the fact that the victim has been examined before the trial court; there is no chance of tampering evidence, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.12.2023 without having any criminal antecedent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant, Sandeep Sahu, involved in Case Crime No. 317/2013, under Sections 376/511/506 IPC, Police Station - Thakurganj, District - Lucknow, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii) The applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

¶21

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.

¶22

(v) 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.

¶23

(vi) 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.

¶24

Order Date :- 21.2.2024 R.C.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep Sahu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Sahu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Saurabh Alias Sajan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Alok Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Home, Lko

Susheel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Nirmal Das @ Govind Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lko and Ors.

Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Civil Secy. Lko. and 3 Others