Allowed

Mangal Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2020BAIL/10921/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this chamber hearing regarding a bail application under Sections 306 and 120-B IPC, the High Court allowed the applicant's bail, directing release on a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions including regular court attendance and compliance with lockdown directives.

Mangal Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10921 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Mangal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hariom Singh,Virendra Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Singh,Gaytri Rajput

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.K.S. Parmar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Virendra Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Satyendra Nath Tiwari, learned AGA for the State through video-conference and Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant through his registered Mobile No.- 9335257582 connected to the video conference through speaker phone function. All counsel could hear each other. Such an adjustment had to be made in the interest of justice as despite repeated efforts, Sri Singh could not join the video conference. Procedures remain handmaids of justice. Unless such modified course had been adopted, hearing could not have been held today, rendering administration of justice subservient to technicalities. In any case, no counsel had any objection to the procedure thus adopted.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Mangal Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 117 of 2019, under Sections - 306, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Chikashi, District - Hamirpur , during pendency of trial.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶8

(i) the applicant is accused of under Sections 306, 120-B IPC;

¶9

(ii) against FIR lodged on 21.12.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 05.01.2020;

¶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

(vi) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the first place, the allegation is against co-accused Pramod Kumari who had lodged a complaint in her own capacity. Further, it has been submitted that in any case, there was no act as may have provoked the deceased to commit suicide;

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Mangal Singh 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 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 (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.

¶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 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. "

¶26

Order Date :- 4.6.2020 Abhilash

Mangal Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Singh 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

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

Ashish Rajak Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Rawat Vs State of Up

Lalita Devi Vs State of U.P.

Smt Meeta Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Iqrar Urf Bhanta Vs State of U.P.