Allowed

Ravindra Kumar Verma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2018BAIL/29954/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29954 of 2018, Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi J. granted bail to the applicant, Ravindra Kumar Verma, involved in a case under Sections 498A, 304B IPC, and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to conditions regarding attendance and non-abuse of bail.

Ravindra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29954 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghubir Singh,Man Singh Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Sri M.P.Yadav, Advocate filed parcha on behalf of the informant today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 343 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is father in law. General allegation fasten against all the family members. The deceased had died on account of hanging and there is no other mark of injury on the person. He next submitted that there is no dying declaration and the husband is languishing in jail. He further submitted that the this is a case of separate living and to establish this fact Annexure-8 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application is being filed showing that there are two different electricity connection establishing the fact that there are two different and distinct unit. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 31.05.2018 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.

¶10

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

In view of the above, let the applicant- Ravindra Kumar Verma be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 343 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehpur with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT 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.

¶13

(ii) THE APPLICANT 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.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT 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 APPLICANT 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.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT 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 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(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 APPLICANT.

¶17

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.8.2018

¶19

Abhishek Sri.

Ravindra Kumar Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Kumar Verma 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

Harbansh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Ashish Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Purnima Alias Poonam Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Sushma Raghav Vs State of U.P.

Gajraj Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Singh Vs State of U.P.