Allowed

Greesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2020BAIL/28561/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed. The High Court held that the applicant had made out a fit case for bail on the facts and circumstances, including the nature of the injury and lack of criminal antecedents, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and trial conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28561 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Greesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Tomar,Ankur Varshney,Arun Kumar Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard I.K.Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Arun Kumar Rana, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Santosh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 72 of 2020, under Sections 302 and 504 IPC, P.S. Hayatnagar, DistrictSambhal (Bheemnagar) is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It is submitted by the counsel that applicant though sole named in the FIR lodged by one Satyapal mentioning that there was celebration going on and during this, applicant came with his riffle and has fired upon his brother-in-law Dinesh son of Pan Singh. Besides this the applicant was nabbed on the spot by the co-villagers. The applicant is in jail since 26.02.2020 and has no criminal antecedents except the present one.

¶8

On perusal of the post mortem report, it reveals that singular gun shot wound over the left knee joint and its correspondence wound of exit. As per the opinion of the doctor the cause of death is on account of excessive bleeding. As per learned counsel, the way, manner and seat of injury suggestive of the fact that, these injury would not trivial beyond section 304 IPC.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Greesh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime

¶13

number on 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:-

¶14

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶16

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, 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 THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.11.2020

¶21

Abhishek Sri.

Greesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Greesh 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

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.

Ankit @ Tedha Vs State of U.P.