Abdullah Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1324 of 2020

Applicant :- Abdullah Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard 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 - Abdullah with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. -99 of 2020, under Sections -201, 302 & 364 IPC, Police Station -Hayat Nagar, District -Sambhal, pendency of trial.

¶7

At the outset, it is stated that the applicant had earlier been granted bail by the learned court below on 03.05.2010. That order has been annexed in the present bail application. Though, the applicant participated in the trial for three years, the trial could not conclude and at the same time for unavoidable reason, the applicant had left the station to earn livelihood. As such the applicant was reported to have absconded and has been apprehended again on 12.09.2018. As such the applicant has remained confined for two years but the trial has yet not concluded in this duration. In such circumstances, applicant is found entitled to bail though on heavy sureties.

¶8

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Abdullah involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties heavy 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:-

¶9

(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.

¶10

(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.

¶11

(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

¶12

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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(viii) It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, the informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material. That application if filed, may be taken up on priority.

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

¶20

Order Date :- 22.9.2020 S.Chaurasia

Abdullah v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdullah 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

Robin and Another Vs State of U.P.

Patariya @ Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhupendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Alias Chhotu Vs State of U.P.and Another