Allowed

Ravi @ Ashutosh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2020BAIL/11256/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Allahabad allowed bail application for accused Ravi @ Ashutosh tried for offences under IPC and POTA. Considering uncorroborated evidence and extended confinement, court granted bail on personal bond with conditions to appear before trial court and follow prior order conditions, invoking COVID lockdown relaxations.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond with conditions to appear in court, abide by prior order terms, and comply with COVID lockdown directives.

Ravi @ Ashutosh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11256 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ravi @ Ashutosh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pratibha Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

The matter has been placed today in the fresh list, in Chambers.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA alongwith brief holder, through video-conferencing.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Ravi @ Ashutosh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No-145 of 2018, under Sections-307, 332, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Sujanganj, District-Jaunpur , during pendency of trial.

¶8

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

¶9

(i) the applicant is accused of offences under Sections307, 332, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act;

¶10

(ii) against FIR lodged on 19.09.2018, the applicant is in confinement since 25.01.2020;

¶11

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

¶12

(iv) the criminal history of the applicant has been explained;

¶13

(v) the bail application has been opposed by learned AGA on the ground of criminal history of the applicant and upon the fact that he has been named by the co-accused;

¶14

(vi) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been noted that the applicant was not named in the FIR and that his name surfaced almost three months after the FIR that too solely on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused. No recovery is claimed to

¶15

have been made from the applicant. There is only one injury which has not been attributed to the present applicant but to another accused Raj Kumar who is claimed to have been enlarged on bail. In such circumstances, the applicant has remained confined for more than four months. Accordingly, applicant is found entitled to bail at this stage;

¶16

(vii) 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.

¶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 - Ravi @ Ashutosh 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:-

¶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 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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

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:

¶27

" 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. "

¶28

Order Date :- 5.6.2020 Shubham

Ravi @ Ashutosh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi @ Ashutosh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalita Devi Vs State of U.P.

Mangal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt Meeta Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Anand @ Anand Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Julfkkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajai @ Pakodi Vs State of U.P.