Allowed

Surendra Urf Sahendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2024CRLA/6402/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal seeking bail, setting aside the impugned order denying it and granting release on bail based on parity with a co-accused, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the underlying charges.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 24.6.2024 set aside; appellant released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, appearance at fixed dates, and non-tampering conditions.

Surendra Urf Sahendra vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:160159

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6402 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Surendra Urf Sahendra Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Alauddin,Fakhruddin Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsels for the appellant/applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present criminal appeal has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 24.6.2024 and release the appellant/applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 77 of 2024, under Sections 366, 120B IPC and 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Police Station Usaka Bazar, District Siddharth Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Brijbhan has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 3.9.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28445 of 2024, having no criminal antecedents to his credit. The appellant/applicant is languishing in jail since 10.5.2024. He further submitted that since the role of the appellant/applicant is identical to that of the coaccused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of parity to the coaccused has not been disputed by him .

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another , reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 without expressing any opinion on the merits

¶11

of the case, the Court is of the view that the appellant/applicant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.6.2024 is set aside. Let the appellant/applicant- Surendra Urf Sahendra, who is involved in aforementioned case crime number 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) The appellant/applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The appellant/applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the appellant/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.

¶14

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶15

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the appellant/applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶16

Order Date :- 1.10.2024 Shalini

¶17

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Urf Sahendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Urf Sahendra v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Jai Govind Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Baba Seth Alias Baba Khan vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopal Saxsena vs State of U.P. and Another

Ayyub vs State of Up

Shrikrishna Ram vs State of U.P.

Awadesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.