Allowed

Rajendra Prasad Chamar v. State of Up

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2020BAIL/13797/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application under Sections 498-A IPC and 304-B IPC, theAllahabad High Court allowed bail, noting the absence of a charge-sheet and lack of investigation material specifically implicating the applicant, distinguishing his case from others. Bail was granted subject to various conditions and the PIL guidelines on releasing prisoners on personal bonds during the lockdown.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions of conduct and attendance.

Rajendra Prasad Chamar Vs State of Up — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13797 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Chamar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ishan Deo Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This second bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.246 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.Koraon, District Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶7

The instant second bail application is pressed firstly on the ground of parity and the Court is referred to the order passed on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.54719 of 2019 in terms of which, the mother-in-law of the deceased (wife of the present applicant) has been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that no dying declaration of the deceased was recorded and that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 16 June 2019.

¶8

For the purposes of considering the prayer for bail, the Court bears in mind that general allegations were made in the FIR against the applicant as well as the mother-in-law. Despite one year having been elapsed since the applicant was taken into custody, no charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant. The investigation has been concluded against the other accused. Learned AGA is unable to draw the attention of the Court to any material gathered during the course of investigation directly implicating the applicant here in the commission of the crime. The Court also bears in mind that the case of the applicant here stands on a footing different and

¶9

distinct from that of the husband. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds no justification for continuing the incarceration of the applicant who has remained in jail since June 2019. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions noticed above, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Accordingly let the applicant - Rajendra Prasad Chamar 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:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶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

¶17

attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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:

¶20

" 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. "

¶21

Order Date :- 10.7.2020 Vivek Kr.

Rajendra Prasad Chamar v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad Chamar v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhey Lal Gupta Vs Civil Judge and 2 Others

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ritu Singh Vs Managing Director Bank of Baroda and 3 Others

Devendra Kumar Vs U.P. Power Corporation Limited and 8 Others

Jagdamba Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vishnu Kumar and 29 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another