Allowed

Siddh Gopal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2018BAIL/30602/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to Siddh Gopal, the father-in-law of the deceased, in a case involving offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and the Domestic Violence Act. The Court found the applicant made out a fit case for bail despite no dying declaration, and imposed strict conditions regarding trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and several conditions regarding attendance, undertakings, and consequences of violation.

Siddh Gopal Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30602 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Siddh Gopal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- B.K. Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J .

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 211 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District- Banda is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the applicant is father-in-law. General role has been assigned to all the accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has no concern with the internal matters of husband and wife-deceased, as the applicant is living separately. In support of separate living learned counsel for the applicant has annexed certificate issued by Pradhan (Annexure No. 1 A to the writ petition) mentioning that the applicant is living separately. There is no dying declaration. The husband of the deceased is languishing in jail. The applicant is also in jail since 12.1.2018 and has no criminal antecedents except the present one.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Siddh Gopal , be released on bail in case crime no. 211 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District- Banda 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:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.8.2018

¶18

A. Pt. Singh

Siddh Gopal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddh Gopal 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

Ram Achal Vs State of U.P.

Urmila Vs State of U.P.

Vikash Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Monu Vs State of U.P.

Sangam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P.