Allowed

Dukhanti Gond v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jun 2020BAIL/11885/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to Dukhanti Gond in a criminal case involving domestic violence charges. The applicant sought release on grounds of a co-accused's prior bail and lack of criminal history. The High Court allowed bail with personal and surety bonds under specific conditions regarding court attendance and procedural verification.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and evidence dates.

Dukhanti Gond Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11885 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Dukhanti Gond Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kamlesh Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Dukhanti Gond with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 152 of 2019, under Sections - 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Haldharpur, District - Mau , during pendency of trial.

¶7

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant states that in exact similar allegations, co-accused (wife of the present applicant), Shakuntala Devi has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11371 of 2020, vide order dated 17.03.2020. 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 - Dukhanti Gond 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

¶12

of his absence, 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 Abhilash

Dukhanti Gond v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dukhanti Gond 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.

Lalaram @ Vitu Vs State of U.P.

Komal Yadav Vs State of U.P.