Allowed

Ankit @ Tedha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2020BAIL/28470/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant facing murder charges, relying on a coordinate bench's order for a co-accused and citing Dataram Singh. The court allowed release on bond despite alleged weapon recovery, imposing strict conditions due to pandemic circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties after the restoration of normal court functioning, subject to strict conditions.

Ankit @ Tedha Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28470 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ankit @ Tedha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Dhaka Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akash Tomar

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Vivek Dhaka, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Akash Tomar, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application filed on behalf of Ankit @ Tedha seeking his bail who is facing prosecution in Case Crime No.552 of 2019, u/s 302, 201, 120B I.P.C., P.S.-Jani, DistrictMeerut.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant though named in the F.I.R. along with co-accused Mohit @ Moni. It is further contended that co-accused Mohit @ Moni has been enlarged on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.2.2020, which has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the petition, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail.

¶8

I have perused the bail order of Mohit @ Moni dated 24.2.2020. Adopting the reasoning while granting the bail to the coaccused Mohit @ Moni, the applicant too is entitled for bail. The applicant is in jail since 05.11.2019 having no criminal antecedents. It is also submitted that there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial in near future.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the complainant has also strenuously opposed the bail application by making the case of the applicant quite distinguishable from the co-accused Mohit @ Moni on account of alleged recovery of weapon at his pointing out.

¶10

I have perused the recovery memo which shows that the said recovery was effected from the open place i.e. abandoned ruins ( khandahar) after about two and half months of the alleged incident without having any blood stain on it. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record

¶12

regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Ankit @ Tedha, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶15

(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 IPC.

¶16

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶17

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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

¶18

THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶19

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶23

1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

4. 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.

¶27

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶28

Order Date :- 3.11.2020 M. Kumar

Ankit @ Tedha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit @ Tedha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rajkumari Vs State of U.P.

Ramu Vs State of U.P.

Sushil Vs State of U.P.

Raju Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Lalu Vs State of U.P.

Greesh Vs State of U.P.