Allowed

Pratima Yadav and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2020BAIL/45057/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed bail to the applicants, Pratima Yadav and Sumitra Devi, relying on the principle of parity with a co-accused released earlier, the constitutional mandate under Article 21, and a leading Supreme Court decision, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the crime.

What did the court decide?

Applicants to be released on bail on personal bond and two sureties each, subject to strict conditions of presence and no adjournment.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45057 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pratima Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Arshad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Mohd. Arshad, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

¶6

The applicants are facing prosecution in Case Crime No. 133 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308, 304 I.P.C., Police Station-Bhatni, District-Deoria. The applicant no. 1 is in jail since 27.07.2020 and the applicant no. 2 is in jail since 15.09.2020.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicants is that as per F.I.R. the main role of assault has been levelled to the coaccused Pintu @ Pankaj Yadav given the lethal rambha blow upon the deceased. The case of the Pintu @ Pankaj Yadav is quite distinguishable. It is further contended that co-accused Sumitra Devi wife of Baburam Yadav is already enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.12.2020 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 35102 of 2020. It is further submitted that the applicants' case stands on the similar footing qua the co-accused Sumitra Devi wife of Baburam Yadav. He lastly submitted that the applicants are also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶8

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

¶9

Keeping in view that the co-accused has already been released on bail, adopting the same reasoning and at the principle of parity, 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.

¶10

Let the applicants Pratima Yadav and Sumitra Devi wife of Shriram Yadav , who are involved in aforementioned case be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two

¶11

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.

¶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 IPC.

¶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 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 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

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the

¶19

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 :- 15.12.2020 Sunil Kr. Gupta

Pratima Yadav and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratima Yadav and Another 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

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.

Shantan Vs State of U.P.

Arif Vs State of U.P.