Allowed

Hardayal @ Gande Giri v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2020BAIL/6552/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad allowed bail to the applicant in a murder and arms case, noting his co-accused wife was already on bail. The grant included a personal bond due to lockdown restrictions cited in a PIL. Standard conditions for presence and conduct were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and undertaking to furnish sureties within one month under COVID-19 directions.

Hardayal @ Gande Giri Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6552 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Hardayal @ Gande Giri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Faiz Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Hardayal @ Gande Giri with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. -545 of 2019, under Sections -302, 120-B I.P.C. & 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station -Baheri, District -Bareilly , during pendency of trial.

¶7

At the outset, it is stated that co-accused Smt. Pushpa Devi , wife of the present applicant has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.55220 of 2019 , vide order dated 16.12.2019 . For the reasons contained in that order, the present applicant is also entitled for bail. Though, the co-accused Smt. Pushpa Devi, had been enlarged on bail, keeping in mind the other consideration as well namely that she had a small child to take care of, insofar as the allegation against the present applicant is concerned, the same is shown to be that he was present at the time and place of occurrence. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant inasmuch as the main allegation is against Kallu Giri, who is stated to have caused the assault in the presence of the applicant and his wife. Further, it has been submitted that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶8

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Hardayal @ Gande Giri involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his 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:-

¶9

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶10

(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

¶11

Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(vii) 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.

¶17

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶18

" Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accusedapplicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶19

Order Date :- 21.9.2020 S.Chaurasia

Hardayal @ Gande Giri v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardayal @ Gande Giri 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Singh Pundir Vs Chokhe Singh and 2 Others

Chandra Shekhar Vs Member Board of Revenue and 5 Others

Ram Ratan @ Babban Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Robin and Another Vs State of U.P.

Patariya @ Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Vs State of U.P.