Allowed

Dasrath @ Bhaggulal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2020BAIL/41378/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to Dasrath @ Bhaggulal in a case under Sections 498A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. The applicant, a father-in-law, claimed false implication and cited parity with a co-accused already released. The court emphasized economic offenses characteristics and parity, imposing strict conditions for trial attendance and swift case disposal.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and future sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding trial attendance and speedy disposal of the case.

Dasrath @ Bhaggulal Vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41378 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Dasrath @ Bhaggulal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Salman Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 222 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.The applicant is in jail since 18.03.2020.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is father-inlaw. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the co-accused Smt. Shakuntala has already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 05.11.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36104 of 2020. He further submitted that the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused-Smt. Shakuntala. He lastly submitted that the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶8

Learned AGA 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.

¶9

The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Dasrath @ Bhaggulal , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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.

¶13

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶15

(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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶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

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

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

Order Date :- 2.12.2020 Abhishek Sri.

Dasrath @ Bhaggulal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasrath @ Bhaggulal 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

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Atul Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Gupta Vs Stat

Reeta @ Sunita and Another Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Anupam Pathak and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.