Devendra Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 34

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2067 of 2020

Appellant :- Devendra Chaudhary Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

As per office report, notice upon the informant has been duly served.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent and perused the paper book.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed challenging the order dated 24.06.2020 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Hathras in Case Crime No. 91 of 2020, under sections 306 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.

¶8

As per prosecution case, two unknown persons are said to have administered poison to the deceased (wife of the complainant).

¶9

It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant that the name of the appellant surfaced after four days of the incident in the second statement of the complainant; cause of death is not known; viscera is preserved; there is no eye witness account; circumstantial evidence do not link the applicant with the commission of the alleged offence; appellant has been falsely implicated on mere suspicion. The appellant is in jail since 13.09.2020 having no criminal history. Therefore, this appeal may be allowed.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the fact as argued by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance hence, appeal as also bail application filed before the court below are allowed, order dated 24.06.2020 is hereby set aside.

¶12

Let appellant, Devendra Chaudhary, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if 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;

¶14

The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date

¶15

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;

¶16

In case, the appellant 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.

¶17

The appellant 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.

¶22

The order reads thus:

¶23

"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."

¶24

Order Date :- 1.10.2020 K.K. Maurya

¶25

Digitally signed by Justice Suneet Kumar Date: 2020.10.05 16:27:38 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devendra Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Premi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Lal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ishma Arora Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.)

Smt. Jeera Devi Vs State of U.P.

Satendra Vs State of U.P.

Sitaram @ Manoj Vs State of U.P.