Allowed

Pushparaj @ Kallu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2020BAIL/44802/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the bail application of the applicant, identified as a sister-in-law (dewar) accused of abetting suicide under Section 306 IPC, finding no evidence to establish active complicity and granting bail subject to specific undertaking conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on a personal bond without sureties conditionally, with an undertaking not to seek adjournments and strict attendance conditions.

Pushparaj @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44802 of 2020 Applicant :- Pushparaj @ Kallu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Subhash Singh Yadav Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶2

Heard Sri Vipin Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinay Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Subhash Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶3

By means of this application, the applicant who is brother-in-law(dewar) involved in case crime no.114 of 2020, under Section 306, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station-Manikpur, District-Chitrakoot is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.09.2020.

¶4

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was got registered by Lakhan Tripathi under Sections 306, 323, 506 on 11.09.2020 for the incident said to have been taken place on 06.09.020 against Mahesh Pandey and his all family members. Contention raised by the counsel that the applicant is dewar (brother-in-law) of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased with Mahesh Pandey, was solemnized in the year 2012 and the couple were blessed with one kid from this wedlock. It is contended by the counsel that general role of maltreatment were attributed upon all the family members upon the husband and his family members. Perturbed by this, she has committed suicide. The post mortem report of the deceased reveals that there is ligature mark around the neck and there is post mortem lacerated wound was found over her person. There is nothing on record to establish that any point of time that applicant has ever abetted or goaded to take this extreme steps.

¶5

Learned A.G.A 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.

¶6

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶7

Let the applicant-Pushparaj @ Kallu , 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:-

¶8

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

¶9

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE

¶10

TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶11

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

¶12

(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 HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶13

(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.

¶14

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

¶15

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-:

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.12.2020/Abhishek Sri.

Pushparaj @ Kallu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushparaj @ Kallu 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

Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Vovi Vs State of U.P.

Shantan Vs State of U.P.

Arif Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Vs State of U.P.