Allowed

Ashish Rajak v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2020BAIL/10372/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for the accused in a dowry death and cruelty case. Considering the trial's pendency, lack of criminal history, and potential hostility of key witnesses, bail was granted on a personal bond with two sureties pending countywide conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions regarding court attendance and case conduct.

Ashish Rajak Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10372 of 2020

¶2

Applicant :- Ashish Rajak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Joveen Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶4

The matter has been heard through video conferencing.

¶5

Heard Sri Joveen Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Ashish Rajak with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 122 of 2019, under Sections- 323, 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Karchhana, District - Prayagraj (Allahabad), during pendency of trial.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶8

(i) against FIR lodged on 5.4.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 8.4.2019;

¶9

(ii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation;

¶10

(iii) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶11

(iv) charge-sheet has already been submitted yet there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

¶12

(v) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it is seen at the trial, the informant, who is father of the deceased, and the mother of the deceased have turned hostile and specifically stated that there were no demand of dowry. They have been declared hostile by the trial court;

¶13

(vi) 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 or intimidate the witnesses.

¶14

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.

¶15

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Ashish Rajak involved in the aforesaid case crime 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

¶16

conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge and (c) 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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

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:

¶25

" 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 non-availability 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 accusedapplicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶26

Order Date :- 3.6.2020 Prakhar

Ashish Rajak v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Rajak 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

Harikesh Sharma @ Sintu Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Saif @ Shaif Vs State of U.P.

Nadeem @ Nadda Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Saini @ Chhotu @ Deepak Sauni Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Rawat Vs State of Up

Dr. Aadesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another