Allowed

Purushottam @ Mulloo Saxena v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2020BAIL/778/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

During the lockdown period, the High Court granted bail to an applicant suffering from over-crowded jail despite multiple charges. Bail was granted on personal bond with directions to furnish sureties once courts reopened after the lockdown.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond subject to furnishing two sureties after lockdown lifts and observance of listed conditions.

Purushottam @ Mulloo Saxena Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 778 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Purushottam @ Mulloo Saxena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

This bail application is being disposed of during the lock down period as per the order dated 04.04.2020 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

¶6

Pursuant to order dated 4.3.2020, learned counsel for the applicant has filed written submission through online, hard copy of the same is taken on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Purushottam @ Mulloo Saxena , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1630 of 2019, under Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station- Kotwali Orai, DistrictJalaun, during pendency of trial.

¶8

In the written submission filed by learned counsel for the applicant, it is stated that due to lock-down, he could not produce the bail orders of nine cases as directed by this Court vide order dated 4.3.2020. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it is clearly stated that except the present case and case crime no. 494 of 2019, under sections 457, 380, 411 I.P.C., he has been enlarged on bail and in case crime no. 494 of 2019, bail application of the applicant is pending. The applicant is in jail since 10.11.2019.

¶9

By filing counter affidavit, State has opposed, but could not dispute the said fact.

¶10

Considering the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail subject to the following conditions :-

¶11

1.Considering the special circumstances of the lock-down prevailing in the district concerned presently and in the light of the directions of this Court in PIL No. 564 of 2020 dated 06.04.2020, let the applicant be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond only to the

¶12

satisfaction of the jail authorities, where the applicant is languishing. It is further directed that within period of four weeks from the date of lifting of the complete lock-down in the district concerned resulting in resumption of normal functioning of the Courts in that district, the applicant shall furnish two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned alongwith certified copy of this order, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand cancelled necessitating surrender of the applicant.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶16

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶17

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶18

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 of the Indian Penal Code;

¶19

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

¶20

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 20.4.2020 Arvind

Purushottam @ Mulloo Saxena v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam @ Mulloo Saxena 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

Siraj Mawaniya Vs State of U.P.

Abrar Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Aasif and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Verma Vs State of U.P.

Naveen Goyal Vs State of U.P.

Amarnath Sahni Vs State of U.P.