Allowed

Ankit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2020BAIL/10266/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail application of Ankit in a murder case (Section 302 IPC). Granted release on personal bond and two heavy sureties based on prima facie evidence, no criminal history, and lockdown conditions affecting surety availability. Imposed strict conditions regarding court appearances.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to specific conditions of appearance and no adjournment.

Ankit Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10266 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ankit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Ankit with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 72 of 2017, under Section - 302 I.P.C., Police Station - Baghpat, District - Baghpat , during pendency of trial.

¶7

From perusal of the bail application and affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:

¶8

(i) the applicant is accused of offence under Section 302 IPC;

¶9

(ii) against FIR lodged on 25.01.2017, the applicant is in confinement since 03.03.2017;

¶10

(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;

¶11

(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶12

(v) chargesheet has already been submitted, however, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial.

¶13

Learned AGA has opposed the present bail application.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, without drawing any inference as to fact and without suggesting any such inference, on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, according to the applicant he has been falsely implicated. Also, it is noted that the FIR had been promptly lodged by the employer of the deceased, however, for a long period of 36 days, no allegation was made against the applicant and it is only thereafter, solely on account of collateral reasons that a close relative of the informant and another witness are alleged to have seen the occurrence whereas

¶15

in the initial statement of the informant and Hari Kishan it had been stated that no one had witnessed the occurrence. In view of the aforesaid facts and in absence of any criminal history of the applicant as also the fact that the applicant has remained confined for more than three years, he is found entitled to bail, though on heavy surety.

¶16

In any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.

¶17

This Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs. State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.

¶18

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Ankit involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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:-

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before

¶23

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.

¶24

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶25

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶26

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶27

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶28

" Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to nonavailability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶29

Order Date :- 3.9.2020 Abhilash

Ankit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit 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

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

Rinku @ Rahul Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lavkush Lodhi Rajpur and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Mahaveer and 9 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Amar Pal @ Amar Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another