Allowed

Farida Nat v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2018BAIL/38639/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No. 38639 of 2017, the court granted bail to the applicant, Farida Nat, charged under Section 460 IPC. The applicant was required to furnish a personal bond and two sureties under specific conditions regarding court attendance and non-interference with the trial process.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding appearance, non-adjournment, and specific legal consequences for default.

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

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38639 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Farida Nat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nand Kishor Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that accused applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. The accused-applicant is languishing in jail since 20.8.2017. It is next submitted that the applicant has criminal history of three cases, in which he is on bail in one case and two cases are pending. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

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.

¶9

Let the applicant, Farida Nat, involved in Case Crime No.1650 of 2012, under Section 460 IPC, Police Station - Kotwali Mahoba, District - Mahoba, be released on bail on his 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:-

¶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 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.

¶12

(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

¶13

Code.

¶14

(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.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.4.2018 KR

Farida Nat v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farida Nat 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Ankur Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Sinha Vs State of U.P.

Jabir Ali Nizami Vs State of U.P.

Rameshwar Singh Pundhir Vs State of U.P.

Francis Vs State of U.P.