Allowed

Premchand Jaisal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 May 2018BAIL/12856/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court allowed the release of the applicant Premchand Jaisal involved in a corruption case. The court granted bail subject to conditions regarding attendance and trial conduct, directing the trial court to conclude the case within one year.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail with personal bond of Rs. one lakh and two sureties; trial to conclude within one year.

Premchand Jaisal Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12856 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Premchand Jaisal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bhav Sahai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikash Shahi, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted the applicant is said to have been caught read handed accepting Rs. 3000/- illegal gratification as he was posted as Chakbandi Kanoongo. He has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 09.2.2018.

¶7

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but has not controverted the aforesaid facts.

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the sentence awardable to the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Let the applicant Premchand Jaisal involved in Case Crime No. 138 of 2018, under Section 7/13-(1)D read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Cantt, District Varanasi be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. one lakh with two sureties of (out of which one should a family member) to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his

¶12

counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case,

¶15

(ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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.

¶16

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same on day to day basis strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a further period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶17

Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Neeraj

¶18

(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J). (Ramesh Sinha, J).

Premchand Jaisal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premchand Jaisal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amit Panchal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yatendra Alias Chhotu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rakesh Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Virendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Shankh Raj Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others