Shiva Urf Shivam Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50989

Court No. - 5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7701 of 2025 Applicant :- Shiva Urf Shivam Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Matter is taken up in the revised call.

¶6

This is the second bail application.

¶7

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Session Trial No. 1373 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 0507 of 2023 at Police Station- Hata, District- Kushinagar under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Section 67 I.T. Act and Section 3/4 POCSO Act.

¶8

The first bail application of the application was rejected by this Court on 20.05.2024.

¶9

The following arguments made by Shri Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Suchit Tandon, learned A.G.A. from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶10

The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial.

¶11

The applicant never influenced witnesses or tampered with the evidence.

¶12

The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede

¶13

the trial proceedings.

¶14

The trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no signs of an early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in the trial.

¶15

The status report sent by the trial court records that the prosecution proposes to examine 8 witnesses. 3 witnesses including the victim and other material witnesses have been examined. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence.

¶16

The testimony of the victim in not consistent with the prosecution case.

¶17

Prosecution witnesses are deliberately delaying the trial only to prolong the incarceration of the applicant.

¶18

Inordinate delay in concluding trial has lead to an indefinite detention of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence. Right of the applicant to a speedy trial has been violated.

¶19

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶20

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of her influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶21

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant- Shiva Urf Shivam Kushwaha be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶23

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶24

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶25

The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023) .

¶26

The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.

¶27

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Pravin

¶28

Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiva Urf Shivam Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiva Urf Shivam Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kishan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shri Deep Narayan Singh vs Chairman Cum Managing Director Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and 3 Others

Rahul vs Assistant General Manager Ma Sh P Bank of Baroda and 2 Others

Garima vs Union of India, through Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution and 2 Others

Dayaram vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ravikant Sinha and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others