Allowed

Sachin @ Shubham v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2024BAIL/10884/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Sachin @ Shubham in a criminal matter involving assault and arms offences. The court noted the applicant was not named in the FIR initially and released him on personal and surety bonds with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding court appearances and non-interference with witnesses.

Sachin @ Shubham vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69705

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10884 of 2024 Applicant :- Sachin @ Shubham Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shamshad Khan,Mohd Usman Warsi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

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. 465 of 2024, under Sections 352, 351(2), 109(1), 3(5) of BNS and Section 4/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶7

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 further submits that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report and his name came into light only after the statement of the injured was recorded. He submits that the main role for stabbing the knife is assigned to one Ankur and thus, the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of Ankur. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history which has been stated in Paragraph 16 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 30.07.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is involved in committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report and his name came into light only after the statement of the injured was recorded; the main role for stabbing the knife is assigned to co-accused Ankur and thus, the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of Ankur; the applicant has no previous criminal history; languishing in jail since 30.07.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

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.

¶11

Let the applicant- Sachin @ Shubham 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:-

¶12

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

¶13

(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;

¶14

(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

¶15

(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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.10.2024 kkv/

¶19

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

Sachin @ Shubham v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin @ Shubham v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Suhail Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Madan Murari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Amar Bahadur Gharti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

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

Ankita Dixit vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and Another

Mataru @ Sandeep Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another