Dhyan Singh @ Golu Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11872 of 2020

Applicant :- Dhyan Singh @ Golu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tej Om Prakash Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Tej Om Praskash Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Dhyan Singh @ Golu with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. -355 of 2019, under Sections -147, 148, 304 I.P.C., Police Station -Ramgarh, District - Firozabad , during pendency of trial.

¶7

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant states that in exact similar allegations, the four co-accused Janardan, Bhoori Singh, Maikal and Geetesh, who were similarly named two months after the FIR had been lodged, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41246 of 2019, 42210 of 2019, 38451 of 2019 and 2208 of 2020, vide orders dated 01.10.2019, 16.10.2019, 24.09.2019 and 14.01.2020 . For the reasons contained in that order, the present applicant is also entitled for bail. Further, it has been submitted that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶8

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.

¶9

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Dhyan Singh @ Golu 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:-

¶10

(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.

¶11

(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,

¶12

without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶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. 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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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:

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 11.6.2020 Shubham

Dhyan Singh @ Golu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhyan Singh @ Golu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banti Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Israr Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu @ Dhanmantri Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lalaram @ Vitu Vs State of U.P.

Dukhanti Gond Vs State of U.P.

Komal Yadav Vs State of U.P.