Allowed

Sanjay Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024/8015/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Allahabad High Court granted bail to the accused in a case involvingattempt to murder and possession of arms, citing lack of antecedents and Article 21 without adjudicating on merits of the charge. Bail granted with conditions to secure presence for trial.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence, remain present for trial, and not seek adjournments.

Sanjay Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50666

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8015 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjay Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the 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 a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 34 of 2024, under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. and 3/25 of the Arms Act, P.S.- Aaspur Deosara, District - Pratapgarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. He submits that the statement of the injured is evident that the fire was opened by one Ambuj Tiwari which inflicted injuries on the jaws of the injured. Due to extraneous reasons final report was submitted in favour of main accused, namely, Ambuj Tiwari and the applicant including one another coaccused have been made scapegoat. He submits that the investigating officer has failed to connect the applicant to the offence as there is no cogent piece of evidence against him. Other falsity has also been shown by the counsel for the applicant. The applicant has no any criminal antecedent and he is languishing in jail since 13.02.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has very vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the FIR and there is specific allegation against him. The injury report supports the version of the prosecution, and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it is evident that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant; the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.02.2024; and other falsity has also been shown and the

¶11

applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

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.

¶13

Let the applicant Sanjay Upadhyay involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on him furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

(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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be

¶20

construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 25.7.2024 Anurag

¶21

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

Sanjay Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Shyam Viyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Rahul Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Suraj Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

AKANkSHA Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Priyatam @ Pritam Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Tiwari vs District Inspector of School and 2 Others