Allowed

Vijay Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2020BAIL/31236/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail application in a case involving Section 302 IPC and 498A IPC. Applicant, father-in-law of the deceased, granted bail on personal bond without immediate sureties due to extraordinary circumstances. Detailed conditions imposed for future compliance once courts resume normal functioning.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond without immediate sureties, with conditions to furnish sureties later. Strict undertaking conditions imposed for trial attendance and trial conclusion.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31236 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajneesh Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rajneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application filed on behalf of Vijay Singh, seeking his bail in connection with Case Crime No.0040 of 2020, u/s 498A, 323, 304-B, 302, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Bichhwan, District-Mainpuri.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant happens to be the father-in-law of Jeth (Rohit) of the deceased. The F.I.R. was lodged by Raj Kishor, father of the deceased, against eight named accused persons. As mentioned above, applicant is the father-in-law of Jeth (Rohit), a completely distinct unit altogether. There is specific allegation of demand of additional dowry in the shape of one car and Rs.5 lacs. Contention is that by no stretch of imagination the applicant, whose interse relationship with the deceased is too remote, could be said to be the beneficiary of such additional dowry. It is further contended that this is blind murder case of which there is no ocular testimony and despite the fact that this is a double murder case but fact remains that nothing incriminating was recovered from the pointing out of the applicant. There is no dying-declaration in this case and the husband is languishing in jail. The applicant is in jail since 29.7.2020 having no criminal antecedents.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

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

¶10

Let the applicant Vijay Singh, 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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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

¶16

APPLICANT.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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-:

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.11.2020 M. Kumar

Vijay Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Singh 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

Shyam Babu @ Anurag Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt Asha Devi @ Kamlapati Vs State of U.P.

Indra Vs State of U.P.

Uttam Das Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P.

Genda Lal Vs State of U.P.