The High Court allowed the bail application, releasing the applicant on a personal bond with two sureties unless sureties were unavailable due to the pandemic lockdown. Strict conditions were imposed regarding trial attendance and appearance during specific proceedings.
Release of the applicant on bail with a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31637 of 2020
Applicant :- Abbas Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akansha Shukla,Ram Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
It is urged that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case; applicant claims parity with co-accused Abdul Ayyub, who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.6.2020. It is urged that nature of offence is purely civil; there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, hence the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail; applicant having no other reported criminal antecedent is languishing in jail since 1.5.2020.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant- Abbas Khan involved in Case Crime No. 733 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 452, 384, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Ijjatnagar, District Bareilly be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac with two sureties (one should be of his family members) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(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.
In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.
The order reads thus:
"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."
Order Date :- 5.10.2020 S.Prakash
Digitally signed by Justice Suneet Kumar Date: 2020.10.06 16:42:14 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in the instant criminal case.
Whether bail should be granted on personal bond due to the state of lockdown.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
In re vs. State of U.P.Explained¶18
Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.)
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Abbas Khan
Suneet Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
