Allowed

Biki Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2024BAIL/7399/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Lucknow granted bail to Biki Sharma in a case involving kidnapping and forming an unlawful assembly under IPC sections 364 and 506, finding prima facie improbability in the victim's story and noting the applicant has no prior criminal record.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount with specified conditions.

Biki Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46979

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7399 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Biki Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Mishra,Saubhagya Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

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.72 of 2024, under sections 364/506 of I.P.C. & 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.-Dhanpatganj, District -Sultanpur.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He next added that the ingredients of Section 364 of I.P.C. do not attract in the instant matter, as there is no allegation of ransom and further there is no mark of injury on the body of the victim. He also added that it is an admitted fact that the victim himself stated that present applicant along with other co-accused persons including the victim were travelling from NOIDA and the incident has taken place at 108 kms at Purvanchal Express Highway, when he went for urination. He submitted that the story of the prosecution is improbable, as is evident from the statement of the victim himself.

¶9

Adding his argument learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.4.2024 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. He submits that the identically situated co-accused, namely Sajjad has been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7057 of 2024

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that there is

¶11

specific allegation in the F.I.R. against the applicant and his name has also been disclosed in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim and there are other evidences, which also indicates that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that prima facie there seems improbability in the story as alleged by the victim and there is no other criminal antecedent of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 21.4.2024 and the applicant has also undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings; thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Biki Sharma, 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:-

¶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

¶19

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 :- 10.7.2024 Ram Murti

¶22

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

Biki Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biki Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Govt. 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

Mayank Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp and Registration Deptt. and 6 Others

Vipin Prakash Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and 3 Others

Pramod Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Smt. Shanti Devi and 3 Others vs State Cadre Authority U.P. Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies Lko. and 4 Others

Lalji Yadav and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sadhusaran vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home