Allowed

Chedilal v. State of Up

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2020BAIL/45641/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 IPC for a fatal incident. The application succeeded despite the serious nature of the charges, imposed multiple strict conditions regarding court attendance and trial conduct, and utilized emergency protocols allowing release without immediate sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict conditions appearing in paragraph 10 to 16, with specific emergency measures in paragraphs 18 to 22.

Chedilal Vs State of Up — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45641 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Chedilal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, 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. 95 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Khakhreru, District- Fatehpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is in jail since 28.6.2020.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the F.I.R. lodged by one Rajesh Kumar on 27.6.2020 under the aforesaid sections against as many as six persons attributing a general role of lathi wielding and the injured has sustained two lacerated wounds at the neck region and on account of excessive bleeding there was loss of blood which have proved fatal to the life of deceased. In the first statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant has reiterated the version of F.I.R., but in the second statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded after 13 days of the incident, he has attributed the particular role to the applicant. There is alleged recovery of Danda from the applicant for which there is no independent eye-witness. Therefore, 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, 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- Chedilal , who is involved in Case Crime No. 95 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Khakhreru, District- Fatehpur, 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 :- 16.12.2020 Vikas

Chedilal v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chedilal v. State of Up

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

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Dharmvir Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pratima Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pattu @ Dhirendra Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Bobi Vs State of Up