Rahul @Guddu Vs State of U.P.

In Chamber

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12540 of 2020

Applicant :- Rahul @Guddu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Juned Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

This bail application has been listed before me pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 04.04.2020 for consideration, therefore, same is being decided in Chamber under the extraordinary conditions prevailing now a days. Written objection dated 4.5.2020 filed by Shri Vikas Goswami, learned A.G.A. on behalf of State is taken on record.

¶6

I have perused the bail application filed on behalf of Rahul @ Guddu, who is languishing in jail since 19.02.2020 in connection with Case Crime No.112 of 2019, u/s 147, 323, 308, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., P.S.-Sewarahi, District-Kushi Nagar.

¶7

The informant Umrawati Devi has lodged the FIR through 156(3) application against 10 named persons including the applicant. The FIR was initially registered u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 308 I.P.C. on 7.5.2019 for the alleged incident said to have taken place on 21.3.2019. The allegation in the FIR is that all ten accused persons on the eve of Holi barged into the house of the informant and started assaulting by kicks, fists, lathi, tamancha, farsa and iron rod. The applicant is said to have assaulted the informant by Farsa and damaged her property.

¶8

I have perused the private medico legal report. There are two stitch wounds over the person of informant and CT scan of informant shows multiple depressed fractures over her head and she was admitted in the hospital.

¶9

From the FIR it is apparent that all ten persons named in the F.I.R. barged into the house of the informant and assaulted by their respective weapons. In such a situation there is confusion and it is impossible to pinpoint as to who is the real author of the grievous injury caused on the informant. The statement of other injured namely Ramakant too told the same lines. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.02.2020 having no criminal history.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, period of detention

¶11

undergone by the applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant, Rahul @Guddu, who is involved in Case Crime No.112 of 2019, u/s 147, 323, 308, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., P.S.-Sewarahi, District-Kushi Nagar, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶14

(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 IPC.

¶15

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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

¶17

LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶18

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶21

1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

4. 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.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.5.2020 M. Kumar

Rahul @Guddu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul @Guddu 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

Banshi Alias Karan Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sharan Vs State of U.P.

Savej Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Saalim Vs State of U.P.