Allowed

Shantan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2020BAIL/45017/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed. Court granted enlargement to applicant Shantan, involved in a riot and homicide case, noting he was not the author of fatal injury. Bail granted on personal bond without sureties temporarily due to extraordinary circumstances, with strict conditions for presence and trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond without sureties temporarily, subject to conditions for appearance, summoning, and future furnishing of sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45017 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Shantan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vikas Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 56 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 304, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kamasin, District- Banda is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is in jail since 30.7.2020.

¶7

Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the prompt F.I.R. was registered by one Natthu Prasad against eight named persons including the applicant. In the F.I.R., general role has been attributed to all of them. The applicant has been assigned Barchhi in the statement of Kallu Mishra (injured) dated 10.7.2020 in which he has specifically mentioned that he has sustained Barchhi injury. The deceased has sustained ten injuries over his person and there is one incised wound over his head which tuned to be fatal one. Learned counsel next contends that the deceased has not sustained any Barchhi wond but the injured has sustained Barchhi wound on his leg. Thus, the applicant, having no criminal antecedents to his credit, deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the fact that the applicant is not an author of fatal injury, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Shantan , who is involved in Case Crime No. 56 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 304, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kamasin, District- Banda, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like

¶11

amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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 I.P.C.

¶14

(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 I.P.C.

¶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 HIM 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

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

¶18

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-:

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 15.12.2020 Vikas

Shantan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantan 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.

Pushparaj @ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Arif Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Vs State of U.P.