Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40570 of 2020

Applicant :- Suraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to carry out the correction in the name of police station as "Gwaltoli".

¶6

Heard Shri Prateek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

¶7

The applicant is facing prosecution in Case Crime No. 87 of 2020, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Gwaltoli Kanpur Nagar, District-Kanpur Nagar and is in jail since 10.05.2020.

¶8

Contention raised by the counsel for the applicant is that the F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the deceased. That about 13 years back the deceased got married with the elder brother of the present applicant. In the last year the husband of the present deceased (brother of the applicant) committed suicide and since then the informant's daughter (the deceased) was residing with the applicant as a wife in the live in relationship. As per version of the F.I.R. the applicant was habitual drunker and on this score there was constant quarrel between the applicant and the deceased. No doubt that the drinking is a bad habit which spoils number of families, but in the instant case there is no evidence that the applicant has ever abetted or goaded the deceased to take this extreme step.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

In absence of effective assistance from the State as well as keeping in view that 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.

¶11

Let the applicant Suraj , who is involved in aforementioned

¶12

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

¶20

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-:

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 25.11.2020 Sunil Kr. Gupta

Suraj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

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.

Gabbar Vs State of U.P.

Rajneesh Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.