Read Time: 11 minutes

The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to an accused who was languishing in jail since 20.3.2017 observing that, it was a fit case to grant the bail, if reformative theory of punishment and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India were taken into consideration.

The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh while grating the bail on conditions also observed that, the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of Covid 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India) must also be taken notice of. As these circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

The Bench further relied on judgment by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another stated that,

“Considering nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India… without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.”

The applicant accused Sachin Dutta was charged under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and that on same set of facts different first information reports were lodged, wherein the applicant has been enlarged on bail,

The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length.

“It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.3.2017. He undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted, therefore, he may be released on bail,” counsel contended further.

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Bench released the applicant accused on the following conditions –

1. The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.

3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

“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 cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison,” Bench further added

 

[CASE TITLE - Sachin Dutta V. State of U.P]

 

 

 

The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to an accused who was languishing in jail since 20.3.2017 observing that, it was a fit case to grant the bail, if reformative theory of punishment and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India were taken into consideration.

The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh while grating the bail on conditions also observed that, the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of Covid 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India) must also be taken notice of. As these circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

The Bench further relied on judgment by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another stated that,

“Considering nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India… without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.”

The applicant accused Sachin Dutta was charged under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and that on same set of facts different first information reports were lodged, wherein the applicant has been enlarged on bail,

The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length.

“It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.3.2017. He undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted, therefore, he may be released on bail,” counsel contended further.

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Bench released the applicant accused on the following conditions –

1. The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.

3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

“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 cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison,” Bench further added

 

[CASE TITLE - Sachin Dutta V. State of U.P]