Allowed

Harikesh Sharma @ Sintu Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2020BAIL/238/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge, in chamber, allowed bail to the applicant charged under 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Due to COVID-19 lockdown impediments in arranging sureties, bail was granted on executing a personal bond with conditions to appear regularly and not seek unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on executing a personal bond with two sureties to be furnished later, subject to specific conditions regarding court attendance and no abuse of liberty.

Harikesh Sharma @ Sintu Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 238 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Harikesh Sharma @ Sintu Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Rahul Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rameshwar Kumar Shukla, learned AGA for the State through video-conference and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Harikesh Sharma @ Sintu Sharma with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 127 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Haldharpur, District - Mau , during pendency of trial.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶8

(i) the applicant is accused of offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act;

¶9

(ii) against FIR lodged on 23.05.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 15.06.2019, i.e. for almost one year;

¶10

(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation;

¶11

(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶12

(v) chargesheet has been submitted. However, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial;

¶13

(vi) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated, owing to misapprehension and misunderstanding between the parties. In fact, the death was caused by an accidental fire wherein the present applicant also sustained serious injuries in trying to save the deceased. Also, it is stated that there is no dying declaration. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that in the five years of marriage, there was no earlier complaint of demand of dowry or of cruelty;

¶14

(vii) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought

¶15

to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.

¶16

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.

¶17

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Harikesh Sharma @ Sintu Sharma 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:-

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

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:

¶26

" 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. "

¶27

Order Date :- 2.6.2020 AHA

Harikesh Sharma @ Sintu Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikesh Sharma @ Sintu Sharma 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

Virendra Kumar Sharma Alias Mithuwa Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Saif @ Shaif Vs State of U.P.

Nadeem @ Nadda Vs State of U.P.

Chiddalal Vs State of U.P.