Allowed

Subhash v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2020BAIL/29892/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC regarding a lathiyatra case, the court granted bail subject to strict conditions. It ordered release on a personal bond initially without sureties due to court closure but directed their furnishing. The order imposes rigorous undertakings regarding attendance and appearance before the trial court to prevent trial delay and prevent misuse

What did the court decide?

Accused Subhash to be released on bail furnishing a personal bond initially without sureties, with a direction to furnish two sureties within a month after normal court functioning is restored.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29892 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Subhash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Meena Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.0095 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station-Khakhreru, District-Fatehpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that though the FIR is being promptly lodged against six named accused persons who have been attributed the general role of assault by lathi and danda upon the deceased-Durgesh.

¶8

I have perused the post mortem report of deceased and from the perusal, it is clear that there is one lacerated wound on the right side of the nose and contusion. Except these two injuries, there is no other injury over the person and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem aspiration of blood i.e. excessive oozing of blood. There was a general and omnibus role of assault against the named accused persons by their respective lathi and danda without any specific role in the statement of 161 Cr.P.C. of Dinesh Kumar, Balram and Rambali. The case of one Chedilal is distinguishable from the applicant who has been attributed the role of causing fatal injury upon the deceased. It is next contended that four coaccused persons were enlarged on bail by this Court on difference occasions, copies of which have been produced for perusal. In this continuation, parity has also been claimed by saying that the case of the applicant stands on similar footing qua the abovesaid four accused persons. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.06.2020.

¶9

Learned A.G.A 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

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity

¶11

of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant, Subhash , who is involved in case crime no.0095 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station-Khakhreru, District-Fatehpur, 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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in

¶20

forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

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-:

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 10.11.2020 Sumit S

Subhash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash 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

Ajay @ Bhullan Vs State of U.P.

Shivank Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rohan Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Singh @ Bablu Baba Vs State of U.P.

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P.