Allowed

Vipin @ Deenu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 May 2019BAIL/19917/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to applicant Vipin @ Deenu in a quashing petition involving Section 498-A IPC charges. Applicant explained non-appearance due to unavoidable circumstances. Court observed heavy pendency and directed trial conclusion within six months.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on executing personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and police station visits.

Vipin @ Deenu Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19917 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vipin @ Deenu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Sunder Mishra,Pavan Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Shyam Sunder Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Om Prakash Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant has been granted interim bail on 27th February, 2017 but he could not appear before the court below due unavoidable circumstances, as a result whereof non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant on 2nd May, 2017 and thereater proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have also been initiated against the applicant under order dated 26th April, 2018. He further submits that the applicant just after knowing the same has surrendered before the court below on 12th September, 2018 and applied for bail but his bail application has been rejected. His absence from the court below has satisfactorily been explained in paragraph no. 9 of the affidavit accompanying the present bail application.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed forth the circumstances under which the accused-applicant could not appear before the court when he was required and as a result of which his bail got cancelled. It has been submitted that henceforth no default shall be committed by the accused and he is prepared to give an undertaking that he shall faithfully make himself available to the court on each and every date. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 12th September, 2018 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. Learned counsel for the applicant has lastly contended that considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 no useful purpose would be served in keeping the applicant

¶9

behind the bars.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar with regard to explanation offered by the accused for his default and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant-Vipin @ Deenu involved in Case Crime No 490 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Bindki, District-Fatehpur, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶13

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶15

(3) The applicant shall personally appear once in the first week of every month in the concerned Police Station. In case of any default, the In-charge, Police Station shall forthwith inform the concerned court about this breach.

¶16

In case of default of compliance with condition no. (2) enumerated herein above, the order granting bail shall stand cancelled automatically and the court concerned shall issue non-bailable warrant in order to get the applicant arrested and lodge him in jail.

¶17

Office is required to communicate this order to the S.S.P. concerned who is required to convey this order to the concerned police station to ensure compliance of condition no.3 as provided herein before.

¶18

The concerned court below which will accept the bail bonds is also directed to convey a photo copy of this order to the concerned police station so that the condition no. 3 provided herein before may be complied with.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶20

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2004 , if there is no legal impediment. If possible, the trial court shall proceed with the matter on day to day basis.

¶21

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 13.5.2019 Sushil/-

Vipin @ Deenu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin @ Deenu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udai Pratap @ Gore Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Udai Pratap @ Gore Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Rustam @ Satyam Vs State of U.P.

Ram Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Bhura @ Inam @ Iqram Vs State of U.P.

Bittu Vs State of U.P.