Allowed

Sawez @ Gattu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 May 2020BAIL/1028/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to applicant in theft case. Court noted lack of identification parade, no list of stolen articles, and absence of independent witness for recovery. Relying on Constitutional rights and precedent, bail granted with bond and conditions, including provision of sureties once courts resume normal functioning.

What did the court decide?

Releasement on bail via personal bond without sureties initially; sureties to be furnished within a month if courts resume normal functioning.

Sawez @ Gattu Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1028 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sawez @ Gattu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shams Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

This bail application has been listed before me pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 04.04.2020 for consideration, therefore, same is being decided in Chamber under the extraordinary conditions prevailing now a days. Two written objections filed by learned A.G.A. on behalf of State are taken on record.

¶6

I have perused the bail application filed on behalf of Sawez @ Gattu, who is languishing in jail since 20.8.2019 in connection with Case Crime No.709 of 2019, u/s 457, 380, 411 I.P.C., P.S.Baraut, District-Baghpat.

¶7

The F.I.R. was lodged by Sarfaraz Ahmad on 15.8.2019 for the incident said to have taken place during intervening night of 13/14.8.2019 against some unknown persons mentioning that the informant is the owner of a three story building. During intervening night of 13/14.8.2019 when the informant, his son, his daughter and his wife are asleep, certain unknown persons barged into the house of informant through ladders and committed theft/looted Rs.1.5 lacs cash and other valuable ornaments belonging to his wife, daughter and daughter-inlaws. It is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that the list of stolen articles would be furnished later on. Interestingly on 19.8.2019 the S.S.I. Zahid Khan has arrested the applicant u/s 3/25 of Arms Act for the alleged recovery of certain articles. It is clear from the F.I.R. (registered as Case Crime No.720 of 2019 at Police Station Baraut, District-Baghpat), that after getting a tip from the informer the police has arrested the applicant Sawez @ Gattu s/o Meharban, Samir s/o Zamil and Azad s/o Shahzad from local chungi. After the search, the police has recovered certain valuable articles from the possession of the applicant. It is simply a mystery that in the F.I.R. there is no list of stolen articles provided and the police has recovered these articles said to have been recovered after the commission of the theft. It is pinpointed that the police has never bothered to get the identification of the articles done by the informant nor any test identification parade was ever conducted so as to pinpoint the

¶8

actual offenders. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery of those stolen articles or test identification parade and in the absence of such mandatory exercise, it would be risky to keep the applicant behind the bars. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.8.2019 having no criminal antecedents.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant, Sawez @ Gattu, who is involved in Case Crime No.709 of 2019, u/s 457, 380, 411 I.P.C., P.S.-Baraut, District-Baghpat, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶12

(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 IPC.

¶13

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶14

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON,

¶15

BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶19

1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

4. 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 1.5.2020 M. Kumar

Sawez @ Gattu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sawez @ Gattu 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

Lakhan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Abu Sujat Vs State of U.P.

Kishori Lal Rathor Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Nida Parveen Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Samir Vs State of U.P.