Single-judge criminal court granted bail to the applicant in a case under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, imposing standard conditions. The court directed the trial court to decide the pending matter expeditiously, referencing Supreme Court principles on delay.
Apersonal bond and two sureties; conditions against tampering; direction for expediting trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14695 of 2019
Applicant :- Surijpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 1098 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 306 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.
The contention as raised at the bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; the FIR has been lodged in pursuance of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; the deceased has committed suicide by jumping into a well; the body was found from the well; the cause of death is drowning. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 24.3.2018 with no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned A. G. A.
Keeping in view the reasons as stated above, the facts and circumstances of the case as have been discussed at the Bar of this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Surijpal involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 , if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 7.8.2019 Kuldeep
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant bail in a case under Sections 498A and 306 IPC where the applicant alleges false implication.
Whether to direct the trial court to decide the pending case expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶20
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Surijpal
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
