Allowed

Saroj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2020BAIL/20091/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal granted bail to Saroj Kumar in a case under Sections 323, 313, 336 I.P.C. The court imposed strict conditions regarding witness tampering, adjournment seeking, and court appearances, outlining legal consequences for default.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Saroj Kumar was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount subject to additional conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20091 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Murti Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.62 of 2020 under Sections 323, 313, 336 I.P.C., Police Station- Sarai Akil, District- Kaushambi.

¶7

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The submission is that the applicant has no criminal history and the co-accused namely Sri Nath has been granted bail by this Court on 19.06.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14981 of 2020. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.06.2020.

¶8

Learned A.G.A., however, opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Let applicant- Saroj Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶12

(ii) 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;

¶13

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

¶14

(iv) In case, the applicant 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and

¶15

(v) 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 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

Order Date :- 24.8.2020 Himanshu

Saroj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munshi Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Saleem Zuberi Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Imanuddin Vs State of U.P.

Jhakku Singh @ Brijendra Singh Vs State of U.P.