Allowed

Lalaram @ Vitu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jun 2020BAIL/11881/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail application of Lalaram @ Vitu in S.T. No.185 of 2019 involving sections 498-A, 304-B IPC. Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties with mandatory conditions to appear in court. Compliance with PLI No. 564 of 2020 directions for lockdown necessitates release on personal bond initially.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict court appearance conditions and undertaking to furnish sureties within one month.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11881 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Lalaram @ Vitu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Chahar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh Chahar, learned counsel for the applicant and 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- Lalaram @ Vitu with a prayer to release him on bail in S.T. No.185 of 2019 , Case Crime No-499 of 2018, under Sections-498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Jasrana, DistrictFirozabad , during pendency of trial.

¶7

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

¶8

(i) the applicant is accused of offences under Sections498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act;

¶9

(ii) against FIR lodged on 14.10.2018, the applicant is in confinement since 18.12.2018;

¶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 yet there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

¶13

(vi) learned AGA has opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and there is a statutory presumption operating against him;

¶14

(vii) having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, purely on prima facie basis, without drawing any inference as to fact and without suggesting any such inference, according to the applicant he/she has been falsely implicated. Also, it is noted that the applicant has remained confined for more than one

¶15

and a half year and that the key witness of fact namely the applicant and the close relative of the deceased had turned hostile and testified against demand of dowry and/or cruelty by the applicant preceding the death. The death is stated to have been caused by suicide;

¶16

(viii) 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 - Lalaram @ Vitu 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

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(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.

¶27

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:

¶28

" 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. "

¶29

Order Date :- 11.6.2020 Shubham

Lalaram @ Vitu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalaram @ Vitu 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

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

Dhyan Singh @ Golu Vs State of U.P.

Dukhanti Gond Vs State of U.P.

Komal Yadav Vs State of U.P.