Allowed

Gabbar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2020BAIL/40467/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application filed by Gabbar under Section 306 IPC. It held that absent direct eyewitness testimony and considering the appellant lack of antecedents and constitutional protections under Article 21, a case for bail was made out. Bail was granted with extensive conditions regarding court attendance and trial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to verified conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition of adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40467 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Gabbar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Som Veer Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application filed on behalf of Gabbar seeking his bail in connection with Case Crime No.374 of 2019, u/s 306 I.P.C., P.S.-Farah, District-Mathura.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that initially the F.I.R. was got registered by one Bholu on 20.10.2019 for the alleged incident said to have taken place on 27.8.2019 u/s 147, 452, 506, 302 I.P.C. against the applicant, Suraj, Giriraj and three unknown persons with regard to the demise of one Reshma. The text of the F.I.R. clearly mentions that Reshma was missing and her pair of sleepers were found near a well. The post-mortem report reveals that the deceased was aged about 19 years and there are two small laceration and abrasion over her person and according to the doctor, she died as a result of drowning. There is no direct ocular testimony of the incident involving the applicant. In the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the informant, he submits that soon after the incident the applicant Gabbar is missing from the village and on this ground alone, his name has been dragged in the offence. The applicant is in jail since 02.9.2020 having no criminal antecedents.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by mentioning that prior to the incident there was a telephonic conversation of the applicant with the deceased.

¶9

Mere telephonic conversation would not necessarily reflect that applicant at any point of time has abetted the deceased.

¶10

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

¶11

that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Gabbar, 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.

¶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

¶18

WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE

¶19

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 :- 25.11.2020 M. Kumar

Gabbar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gabbar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ikram Vs State of U.P.

Harsh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rajneesh Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.