Allowed

Susma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2020BAIL/18768/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad granted bail to the applicant in a murder and criminal conspiracy case. The court imposed strict conditions regarding court appearance and prohibition of adjournments, relying on a previous bail order in a related case and guidelines issued during the COVID-19 lockdown regarding the release of sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specified conditions of appearance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18768 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Susma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dev Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

List revised. None is present to press this application. However, the bail application has been gone through and learned AGA has been heard.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Susma with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 109 of 2020, under Sections 302 & 120-B IPC, Police Station-Jalalpur, District-Jaunpur , during pendency of trial.

¶7

Having gone through the bail application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:

¶8

(i) the applicant is accused of offence under Sections 302 & 120-B IPC;

¶9

(ii) against FIR lodged on 27.05.2020, the applicant is in confinement since 29.05.2020;

¶10

(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case, she is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;

¶11

(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶12

(v) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it is seen that the FIR was lodged by the sister of the deceased, making specific allegations against Hari Kanchan @ Saurabh, who is the brother of the present applicant. The allegation appears to be that some coercion was practised by said Hari Kanchan @ Saurabh on the deceased to marry him. However, at present, it appears that the ocular evidence offered by the informant is only against Hari Kanchan @ Saurabh and only on general allegation that the applicant had been supporting her brother, she has been implicated. The applicant is a lady and is in confinement since 29.05.2020.

¶13

(vi) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witnesses.

¶14

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.

¶15

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Susma involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her 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:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶17

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

¶18

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(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 her in accordance with law.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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

¶23

declaration of such verification in writing.

¶24

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:

¶25

" 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. "

¶26

Order Date :- 8.7.2020 AHA

Susma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susma 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

Dilip Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anil Kumar @ Kalyan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Putul @ Vindesh Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Harijan Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Vs State of U.P.

Soni Vs State of U.P.