Allowed

Satendra Kumar Dohare v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2020BAIL/44566/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J. allowed the bail application of Satendra Kumar Dohare. The applicant was falsely implicated with false recovery. Parity was considered with a co-accused who was granted bail. Bail was allowed without observations on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount with conditions of presentation.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44566 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Dohare Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Mishra,Nagendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 374 of 2020 at Police Station- Jaswant Nagar, District- Etawah on 12.9.2020, under Section 398, 420, 401, IPC and 41/102 Cr.P.C.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (D.A.A Act)/ Additional Session Judge, Court No. 8 Etawah on 5.10.2020.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 12.9.2020 pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel contends that the applicant was falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery has been shown from the applicant. The applicant claims parity with the case of co-accused person namely Raj Kumar Rajpoot, who has been granted bail by this Court on 7.12.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42263 of 2020 (Raj Kumar Rajpoot Vs. State of U.P.).

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application.

¶11

The applicant has satisfactorily explained his criminal history. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Satendra Kumar Dohare be released on bail in Case Crime No. 374 of 2020 at Police Station- Jaswant Nagar, District- Etawah, under Section 398, 420, 401, IPC and 41/102 Cr.P.C. registered on 12.9.2020 at Police StationJaswant Nagar, District- Etawah, on his furnishing a personal

¶13

bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.12.2020 Dhananjai

Satendra Kumar Dohare v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra Kumar Dohare 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

Pushpendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Jamaluddin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Reyaj Alias Bauna Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Tekchand Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.