Allowed

Ram Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2020BAIL/45574/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal court allowed bail to an accused in a murder case. The applicant was attributed a general role while another accused was the principal offender. Bail granted with conditions to ensure appearance and filing undertakings regarding adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon personal bond with conditions to appear at evidence, framing of charge, and recording of statement without adjournment.

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45574 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,Surendra Nath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhil Kumar Shukla, Sri Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the complainant 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.618 of 2020, under Section 302/34 IPC, Police Station-Kannauj, District-Kannauj is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was got registered by unknown time and date of the incident by one Manjeet Rajpoot on 09.10.2020 against four named accused persons including the present applicant. From the FIR and 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the informant it has been culled out that informant after gathering the information from co-villagers the FIR was got registered. General role has been attributed to all the accused persons of assaulting the deceased by firearm. The post mortem report reveals that deceased has sustained a singular gun shot injury over his person and as per opinion of the doctor, the deceased had died on account of ante mortem gun shot injury. Neelendra Verma and Parmail Lal Verma in their 161 Cr.P.C. statement, they have given their eye witness account of the incident in which they have attributed the role of firing upon Babloo @ Prem Singh and the rest of the accused persons are attributed the role of exhortation. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of Babloo @ Prem Singh. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.10.2020 having no criminal antecedent to this credit..

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

Let the applicant-Ram Kumar , 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:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE 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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

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-:

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.12.2020

¶23

Abhishek Sri.

Ram Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar 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

Shubham Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Meraj Vs State of Up

Ramsheesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Kumar @ Kukku Vs State of U.P.

Fazal Khan Vs State of U.P.