Allowed

Satish Rao v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2019BAIL/24921/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant, who was in custody for cheating and forgery offences, noting he was no longer needed for investigation. Bail was allowed subject to personal bond, sureties, and strict undertakings regarding court appearances and absence penalties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and undertakings regarding attendance and non-abuse of liberty.

Satish Rao Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24921 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Satish Rao Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Misra,Sushil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the Staterespondents.

¶6

While pressing this application, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant states that the applicant is facing trial for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506 IPC, which is Magistrate triable. He further states that the applicant is behind the bars for quite a substantial period and a chargesheet too has been filed in the matter.

¶7

Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by referring the gravity of offence.

¶8

Considering the rival submissions and looking to the fact that the applicant is no more required for the investigation purposes and further the trial will take time in its completion, I am inclined to grant this application for bail. Accordingly, the same is allowed.

¶9

Let the applicant- Satish Rao , S/o Rajballabh, involved in Case Crime No. 450 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Khajni, District- Gorakhpur 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 Code.

¶13

(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.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.1.2019 Rameez

¶15

(Govind Mathur, C.J.)

Satish Rao v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Rao 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

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Vs State of U.P.and Another

Dr. Ashok Kumar Vs State through Cbi/Acb New Delhi

Sanket Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakeel Vs State of U.P.

Deepak @ Deepa Vs State of U.P.

Farukh Vs State of U.P.