Allowed

Hari Sharan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2018BAIL/27491/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J. granted bail to the applicant Hari Sharan in a criminal trial involving IPC offences including rape and criminal conspiracy. Entitled due to incarceration since February 2016 and completion of victim statement recording. Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27491 of 2016

¶2

Applicant :- Hari Sharan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar (Kaushik),Nageshwar Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Singh,Vinay Kumar Singh Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Niraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, who has appeared for the informant.

¶4

This second bail application has been moved consequent to the first bail application having been rejected on 13 April 2016 by this Court. Subsequent thereto, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 (Victim) have been duly recorded and cross examination has also been completed. He also invites the attention of the Court to the fact that the applicant has been in jail since 29 February 2016.

¶5

Learned counsel referring to the averments taken in the Affidavits filed in the present proceedings also makes statement on instructions that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each and every date fixed and shall cooperate with the conclusion of the trial which is ongoing. He further states that the applicant shall make no attempt overt or covert to either contact or intimidate the witnesses in the trial. The statement so made is recorded and accepted.

¶6

Bearing in mind the fact that the applicant has remained incarcerated from February 2016 and that the recordal of statement of the victim has been completed, the Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to bail.

¶7

Accordingly, let the applicant Hari Sharan involved in Case

¶8

Crime No. 16 of 2016, under Sections 452, 376, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Erach, District Jhansi be released on bail on 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:-

¶9

(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.

¶10

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel as may be desired by the Court. 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 also it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as an abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.7.2018/Arun K. Singh

Hari Sharan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Sharan 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

Vijay Kumar Rajpal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kuldeep Giri Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chetram Vs Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Kanpur and 4 Others

Pradeep Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mehrudeen and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shabau Vs State of U.P. and Anr.