Allowed

Devendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Jun 2018BAIL/23589/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge in a criminal bail application granted bail to the applicant accused of causing hurt and assault. The court ordered release on a personal bond with two sureties and framed conditions regarding attendance, adjournment, and misuse of liberty invoking IPC provisions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions of attendance, no adjournment seeking during evidence, and consequences for misuse of liberty.

Devendra Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23589 of 2018 Applicant :- Devendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh Lodhi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Puspendra Singh Lodhi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶4

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is alleged that three accused persons including the applicant have assaulted the deceased with kicks and fists. The deceased received one abraded contusion on his knee. The cause of death could not be ascertain. Viscera is preserved. The applicant is in jail since 24.01.2018.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶6

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶7

Let the applicant Devendra involved in Case Crime No. 0004 of 2018, under Sections 304, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahr be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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.

¶12

(iv) 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 absence of the applicant 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 him in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 26.6.2018/VKG

Devendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra 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

Rajesh Sahu Vs State of Up

Haidar Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Gurjar Vs State of Up

Omveer Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P.

Jaykesh Vs State of U.P.