Allowed

Matgulla v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2018BAIL/40502/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to applicant in a murder case involving serious charges. Court issued specific conditions regarding adjournments and trial attendance, directing the trial court to conclude the trial within six months to ensure speedy justice.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond of Rs. two lac with two sureties; directed trial court to conclude trial within six months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40502 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Matgulla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant along with his brother Sanjay has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submitted that first information report was lodged by the brother of the deceased alleging therein that the victim had been given knife blows by the applicant causing serious injuries to him which resulted in his death while his brother Sanjay had caught hold of the deceased. He further submitted that according to the postmortem report only one stabbed wound was found on the dead body of the deceased He further submitted that the incident was neither preplanned nor premeditated but was a result of sudden fight. He also submitted that so far as the trial is concerned two prosecution witnesses have been examined.

¶7

He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 15.2.2016 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

case.

¶11

Let the applicant-Matgulla involved in Case Crime No. 60 of 2016, under Sections 302, 307 and 504 I.P.C., P.S. Hasanpur, district-Amroha be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. two lac with two sureties (one should of his family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(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. (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.

¶13

(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.

¶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. However, considering the fact and circumstances of the case the

¶15

trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the trial court.

¶16

The applicant is directed to produce the certified copy of this order before the trial court for its compliance.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Faridul

Matgulla v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matgulla 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

Vinod Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Arjun Dev Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Smt. Asha Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Ram Autar Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P.