Allowed

Pradeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2018BAIL/43337/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second bail application of Pradeep, charged under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, noting that fact witnesses were recorded and tampering unlikely. Bail was granted on a personal bond with conditions to expedite the trial within three months and prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. one lac with two sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding trial conduct and expedition.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. 2nd BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43337 of 2015

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Jeet Singh,Pankaj Satsangi,Preet Pal Singh Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Preet Pal Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2014.

¶7

The new ground which has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant is that evidence all the witnesses of fact have been recorded and only formal witness are left to be recorded, hence, there appears to be no chance of tampering with the evidence. The applicant the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.4.2014 but the trial has not yet been concluded. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶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 tampering 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.

¶10

Let the applicant-Pradeep involved in Case Crime No.745 of 2013, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Binawar, District Budaun be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.one 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:-

¶11

(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

¶12

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 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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within preferably a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if, there is no legal impediment.

¶17

Order Date :- 20.4.2018 NS

Pradeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Ashok Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Ram Prakash @ Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Rukhsat Hussain @ Bihari @ Rukhsar Vs State of U.P.

Shakti Yadav @ Pillu Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.