Allowed

Devendra and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Aug 2020BAIL/17019/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed bail to two applicants charged under multiple IPC sections for an assault resulting in death. The court distinguished them from a co-accused who caused the fatal injury, fixing strict conditions for attendance and passport surrender.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail with personal bond (two sureties each) and strict undertakings regarding absence, attendance at specific stages, and passport surrender.

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

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17019 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Devendra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

As per the Office report dated 18.08.2020, an urgency application has been moved on behalf of the applicant in the present bail application through e.mail, which has been allowed vide order dated 18.08.2020, hence the present bail application has come before this Court today in the cause list of fresh cases. The the Court thus proceeds to hear the matter.

¶6

Heard Sri Shashi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar Vashistha, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Sanjay Sharma, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State through Video Conferencing and perused the record.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants along with other co-accused persons, who were four in number have been assigned with the general role of assaulting the deceased with lathi-danda and the deceased received four injuries on his person, out of which injury no.4 appears to be fatal, which is on head. He submits that six persons also received injuries in the present case and as per statements of injured though the general allegations have been levelled against all the accused, but it was Jitendra, who said to have assaulted the deceased on his head. He submitted that the applicants have criminal history of one case each i.e. under Excise Act and under sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The applicant no.1-Devendra is in jail since 6.1.2020 and applicant no.2-Dinesh is in jail since 29.1.2020.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that all the accused including applicant have mercilessly beaten the deceased and six injured persons, but could not dispute the fact that the deceased suffered one fatal injury, which is situated on head and as per statements of eye witness as well as the injured, it was Jitendra, who has caused injuries on the head of deceased by danda.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and

¶10

considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶11

Let the applicants Devendra and Dinesh involved in Case Crime No.05 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 336, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Patiyali, District Kasganj, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned and the court concerned shall take an undertaking from the sureties that the properties movable/immovable which are the basis of accepting the surety, shall not be disposed of by them during the pendency of the trial with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶13

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

¶16

(v) The applicants shall surrender his passport, if any, before the trial court & shall furnish an undertaking not to leave the country until permission is obtained by them from this Court or

¶17

till the conclusion of the trial.

¶18

The case of the applicants is distinguishable from coaccused Jitendra Singh.

¶19

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within preferably a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if, there is no legal impediment.

¶20

The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶21

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.8.2020 Tamang

Devendra and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra and Another 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

Rohit Shrma @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Khusboon Vs State of U.P.

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Atarkali Vs State of U.P.

Yasin Vs State of U.P. and Another