Allowed

Shivam Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Jun 2024/2036/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Lucknow Bench allowed an appeal against the rejection of a bail application. Despite not expressing a final opinion on the merits of the crime, the court granted bail considering over five years of pre-trial detention, impressing additional严格 conditions on liberty.

What did the court decide?

Appellant enlarged on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including presence at trial dates and prohibition of tampering with witnesses.

Shivam Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:43887

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2036 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Shivam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Anand Kumar Yadav,Anuj Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J .

¶6

Counter affidavit on behalf of the State as well as rejoinder affidavit of appellants filed today in Court are taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

This appeal has been preferred under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against impugned order dated 31.08.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 2826 of 2022 (arising out of Case Crime No. 232 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, 504 & 506/34 IPC, & Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and Sections 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Baldirai, District Sultanpur. Bail Application No. 2826 of 2022 of the applicant has been rejected vide impugned order dated 31.08.2022.

¶9

Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid crime. The role of committing the crime has been assigned to co-accused persons, Amarjeet Yadav and Ram Singh has been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitled to get bail on the ground of parity.

¶10

The appellant is in jail since 19.08.2019. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse liberty of bail and is ready to co-operate in the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for

¶12

bail and has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail and the bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶13

After hearing the rival submissions of the parties, and perused the record, without expressing any opinion on merit and considering the fact that the appellant has served more than 5 years as pre trial detention, I find that it is a fit case for grant of bail of appellant/applicant.

¶14

Impugned order dated 31.08.2022 is hereby set aside.

¶15

The appeal is hereby allowed.

¶16

Let appellant (Shivam Singh) be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of witnesses and shall not commit any offence.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(iii) 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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

Or der Date :- 21.6.2024 Anuj Singh

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shivam Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Similar cases

Indrapal Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Umesh Gupta Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ankit Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Rohit Bind vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Juvenile X, Thru. His Guradian/Uncle vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko

Sachin Sonkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.