Allowed

Shakti Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2024BAIL/10737/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under BNS sections 85, 115(2), 123 and 352 arising from a matrimonial FIR; court noted prolonged custody, no criminal history and filed chargesheet, and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, with conditions against tampering and non-appearance.

Shakti Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75317

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10737 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shakti Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vimal Kishor Singh,Premkant Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

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. 336 of 2024, under sections 85, 115(2), 123 and 352 BNS P.S.- Mohanlalganj District - Lucknow.

¶9

The 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 submits that the statement of the doctor itself is evident that the victim had herself taken the substance namely, Phenyl. He also added that false allegations are levelled in the statement under section 183 before the trial court though, no such incident has ever taken place. He also submits that the applicant is husband and the concocted first information report has been lodged against him coupled with the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 29 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 27.08.2024 and the chargesheet has been filed and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶11

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.08.2024; chargesheet has been filed

¶12

in the case; the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 29 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, 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- Shakti Singh 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 :- 14.11.2024 Mayank

¶22

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

Shakti Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakti Singh 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

Vishal Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Sectt. Lko

Smt. Pratibha Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Shyam Dhar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minority Welfare and Waqf Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Harindra Kumar Yadav Alias Vikrant and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Shiv Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Thru. Civil Secrtt., Lko. and Others

Premkala vs State of U.P. Thru. Pirn. Secy. Home Lko.