Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

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

Home
Allahabad HC
2020
Arun Vs State of U.P.Arun v. State of U.P.

Allowed

Arun v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2020BAIL/16901/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

单议法庭准许申请人在其参与的违反376条印度刑法案件中获得保释。法院依据伴随审判已获保释的共犯情况及申请人无犯罪前科的事实，在遵循先例的同时，在关乎正义的愿望范围内施加了个人债券及两名保证人等条件。

What did the court decide?

获准保释，须缴纳个人债券及两名保证人，并注明附带各项条件。

What the court decided

AI extract

A

Court No. - 72

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16901 of 2020

Applicant :- Arun Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Deepali Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Arun with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No-78 of 2018, under Section-376 I.P.C., Police Station-Rabupura, DistrictGautambudh Nagar , during pendency of trial.

At the outset, it is stated that co-accused Anil, who had been chargesheeted, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.28252 of 2018, vide order dated 31.07.2018 . Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, his name had been expunged from the chargesheet, later he has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 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.

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.

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether to grant bail to the applicant in the implicated criminal trial case under Section 376 IPC.
2.
What conditions to impose for granting bail in the circumstances of the case.

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
Arun

Coram

AI extract

Saumitra Dayal Singh

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Allahabad HC
Decided on: 10 Jul 2020 · July
Registered: 20 Jun 2020
Case no.: BAIL/16901/2020

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Saumitra Dayal Singh

Ajay Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others
9 Jul 2020
Sidhnath Chauhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others
9 Jul 2020
Kripa Shankar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others
9 Jul 2020
Guddu Alias Navneet Vs State of U.P. and Another
10 Jul 2020

Cite this judgement

Arun v. State of U.P., BAIL/16901/2020 (ALL), decided on 10 July 2020.

The Allahabad High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

Saumitra Dayal Singh

Parties & counsel

Outcome

获准保释，须缴纳个人债券及两名保证人，并注明附带各项条件。

Issue for consideration

Whether to grant bail to the applicant in the implicated criminal trial case under Section 376 IPC. +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

法庭拒绝就在案件的最终实质问题上发表意见，但准予保释申请人，条件是提供个人债券及两名保证人到相关法院满意为止。施加的条件包括不得滥用保释自由、维持到庭以及遵守疫情期间禁令。遵循先例。

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Arun 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:-

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

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

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

(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.

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:

" 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. "

Order Date :- 10.7.2020 S.Chaurasia

CNR

UPHC010676702020

Topic

Bail and Remand

Bench

Saumitra Dayal Singh

Disposal

Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits

Himanshu Vs State of Up

10 Jul 2020

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of U.P.

10 Jul 2020