Allowed

Smt Sarvati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2021BAIL/10721/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application by Smt Sarvati, who faced charges for alleged medical negligence. The court found her non-complicity in the operation and delivery of the deceased, noting other accused were already on bail, and granted bail subject to strict appearance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond and two sureties (after normal court functioning restored) under strict conditions regarding attendance and trial conduct.

Smt Sarvati Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10721 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt Sarvati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suneel Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Pandey Bal Krishna, Advocate holding brief of Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Shriprakash Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Shri suneel Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present bail application the applicant Smt. Sharvati seeking her bail who is facing prosecution in connection with Case Crime No.757 of 2019, u/s 304, 420 I.P.C. and Sections 15/2 & 15/3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, P.S.-Civil Lines, District-Rampur.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is the applicant is one of the three named accused persons and the only role attributed to the applicant is that she has given reference of a private hospital Hindustan, Shahbad Road, Rampur to the patient to be treated therein. It is contended that the applicant has not conducted any operation nor she has done any surgery and nor she is connected with the delivery of deceased Mrs Saroj. Contention is that the doctors and the Manager who are named in the F.I.R. were already granted bail by the lower court. The applicant is in jail since 12.12.2019 having no possibility of early conclusion of trial in near future. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Smt. Sarvati, who is involved in aforesaid Case Crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE 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.

¶12

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶13

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER 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 HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶14

(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 HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶15

(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

¶16

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

1. 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

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

¶21

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

¶22

4. 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

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶24

Order Date :- 11.1.2021 M. Kumar

Smt Sarvati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sarvati 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P.

Parmila Devi Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh @ Shashi Kant Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Somvati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Dilip @ Munne Vs State of U.P.

Meharwan Singh Vs State of U.P.