Allowed

Robin and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2020BAIL/743/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail for applicants charged with murder and grievous hurt in a poisoning case. The court imposed stringent conditions ensuring presence in court and prohibited adjournments. Release was permitted on personal bond considering pandemic implications and lack of sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties each; stringent conditions of presence and no adjournments imposed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 743 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Robin And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava,Nagendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bharat Garg

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

List is revised. None is present for the informant. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants - Robin and Brain with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 398 of 2019, under Sections - 328 and 302 I.P.C., Police Station - Majhola, District - Moradabad , during pendency of trial.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶8

(i) against FIR lodged on 8.6.2019, the applicants are in confinement since 14.10.2019 i.e for almost an year;

¶9

(ii) the applicants claim to have cooperated in the investigation;

¶10

(iii) the applicants have no criminal history;

¶11

(iv) chargesheet has already been submitted, however, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

¶12

(v) without drawing any inference as to fact and without suggesting any such inference, on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it is noted that the death was caused due to poisoning of the deceased Suraj Pal, who was about 23 years of age. Besides the fact that there are no external antemortem injury noted in the postmortem report, it has been submitted that it was a case of pure suicidal occurrence arising from the failed relationship between the sister of the applicants and the deceased. In such facts where the trial may take unduly long period of time and it may not be disputed that the cause of death is poisoning, the applicants are entitled to bail;

¶13

(vi) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State and or the informant that

¶14

the applicants, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness.

¶15

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicants - Robin and Brain involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their 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:-

¶16

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶17

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) The applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

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:

¶24

" 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 accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶25

Order Date :- 21.9.2020 Prakhar

Robin and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robin 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

Statutes considered

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

Patariya @ Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Vs State of U.P.

Hardayal @ Gande Giri Vs State of U.P.