Allahabad High Court
Shiv Pratap @ Shiv Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 June, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100658
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 531 of 2025
Appellant :- Shiv Pratap @ Shiv Singh
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ali Hasan,Phool Singh Yadav,Ram Murti Yadav,Vaibhav Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Singh,Rana Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ali Hasan, the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1.
2. Perused the record.
3. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. submits that notice of present appeal has been served upon first informant opposite party No.2 on 23.01.2025. However, in spite of service of notice upon first informant opposite party-2 neither any counter affidavit has been filed by first informant/opposite party No.2 in opposition to this application for bail nor anyone has put appearance on his behalf to oppose this appeal even in revised call.
4. Appellant Shiv Pratap @ Shiv Singh has approached this Court by means of this appeal seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.504 of 2024, under Section 109, 115(2), 118(1), 191(2), 351(3) & 352 BNS & 3(2)(v) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station-Rasulabad, District Kanpur Dehat during the pendecy of trial.
5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that though appellant is named and chargesheeted accused yet appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendecy of trial. With reference to the material on record it is urged by the learned counsel for appellant that the injured sustained one incised wound. The said injury was caused by co-accused Ashish and not by present appellant. As such, the case of present appellant is distinguishable from co-accused Ashish. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for appellant that even otherwise appellant is a man of clean-antecedents inasmuch as there was only one criminal case pending against him in which he has already been acquitted by the trial court. Appellant is in jail since 07.12.2024 as such, he has undergone almost seven months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against appellant stands crystallized. However, upto this stage no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of appellant during the pendency of trial.
6. On the above premise, the learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. In case, the appellant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
7. Per contra the learned AGA representing State-opposite party no.1 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned AGA submits that since appellant is a named and charge-sheeted accused therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Considering the nature and gravity of offence and also the nature of injury sustained by the deceased, the learned AGA submits, that no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of appellant. The doctor who had prepared the medico legal report of the injured in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has opined that the injury sustained by the injured was serious. On the other premises the learned AGA submits that since appellant is a party to a crime which has assaulted the injured on account of which he sustained aforementioned grievous injury, therefore, appellant does not deserve any sympathy by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for appellant in support of the present appeal with reference to the record at this stage.
8. Having heard, the learned counsel for appellant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused this Court finds that appellant is a named and charge sheeted accused, however, the injury sustained by the injured was caused by co-accused Ashish Kumar and not by the present appellant, the case of present appellant is clearly distinguishable from co-accused Ashish Kumar, since no x-ray of the injury sustained by the injured was got done therefore, up to this stage there is no material on the basis of which the nature of the injury as to whether it was muscle deep or bone deep can be found, the appellant has one criminal history to his credit in which he has already been acquitted by the trial court, appellant is in jail since 07.12.2024 as such he has undergone almost seven months of incarceration, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. having already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against appellant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of appellant during the pendency of trial, the judgment of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 in opposition to the present appeal, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, appellant has made out a case for bail.
9. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.
10. Let the appellant-Shiv Pratap @ Shiv Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN 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.
(ii) THE APPELLANT-APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPELLANT 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 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPELLANT.
11. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 30.6.2025
Neeraj
