Shyam Singh vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shyam Singh vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Shyam Singh (Case Crime No. 189 of 2024, Sections 8, 20, 29, 60 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Araul, Dist. Kanpur Nagar): release on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to six enumerated conditions and verification of sureties before the release order; breach of conditions to be ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Shyam Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 189 of 2024 under Sections 8, 20, 29 and 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Araul, District Kanpur Nagar, is entitled to be released on bail.

Court's answer

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of counsel, the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Apex Court judgment in Satendra Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. dated 11.07.2022, and 5-6 times overcrowding of jails by under-trials, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Shyam Singh is to 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 specified conditions.

Key takeaways

Before issuing the release order, the sureties are to be verified.ratio¶11
Six bail conditions were imposed, including a mandatory condition that the applicant remain personally present before the trial court at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.ratio¶17
Breach of any of the imposed bail conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — parity with co-accused; N.D.P.S. Act offences (Allahabad High Court, Court No. 47, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9866 of 2025, order dated 2.4.2025, Hon'ble Siddharth, J.). Applicant Shyam Singh, in jail since 5.11.2024 and arraigned in Case Crime No. 189 of 2024 under Sections 8, 20, 29 and 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Araul, District Kanpur Nagar, contended that he stood on an identical footing with co-accused Sukhvinder Singh, already enlarged on bail vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46739 of 2024 on 24.3.2025. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity, the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Apex Court decision in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I. (S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, dated 11.07.2022) and 5-6 times overcrowding of jails by under-trials, and expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and allowed the application. Release was ordered on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order, under six conditions — including no tampering with evidence, sincere cooperation without adjournments, no fresh criminal activity, no inducement/threat/promise to witnesses, an undertaking against adjournment-seeking during evidence, and personal presence at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; breach of any condition was declared a ground for cancellation of bail.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45664

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9866 of 2025

Applicant :- Shyam Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Md. Muzzammil.I.Qureshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

The submission is that co-accused, Sukhvinder Singh, has already been enlarged on bail vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46739 of 2024 on 24.3.2025 and the case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail for the reasons given in bail application of coaccused on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 5.11.2024.

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant, Shyam Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 189 of 2024, under Sections 8,20,29,60 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Araul District- Kanpur Nagar, 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.

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

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. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

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

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Atul kr. sri.

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad