Allowed

Mamta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2021BAIL/13084/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the second bail application of Mamta in a criminal case involving IPC offences and the Drugs and Cosmetic Act. The court found that the trial was not proceeding after her first co-accused was examined and granted bail subject to strict undertakings and a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties and compliance with specific conditions regarding trial proceedings and presence in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13084 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mamta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This is the second bail application. First bail application came to be rejected vide order dated 7.9.2020.

¶7

Changed circumstances in filing the instant bail application is that the trial is not proceeding; P.W.-1 was examined before rejection of the bail application; applicant is a lady; applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case, hence applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail; applicant having no other reported criminal antecedent is languishing in jail since 12.4.2019, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarge on bail, she will never misuse her liberty and will cooperate in the trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶10

Let the applicant- Mamta involved in Case Crime No. 104 of 2019, under Sections 304. 314, 419, 420 I.P.C. and Section 18A and 27 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, Police Station Tirwa, District Kannauj, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac with two sureties (one should be of his family members) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶12

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

¶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. is

¶14

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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(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 her in accordance with law.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

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.

¶20

The order reads thus:

¶21

"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."

¶22

Order Date :- 15.9.2021 S.Prakash

Mamta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta 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

Santosh Vs State of U.P.

Sant Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Atul Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Continental India Private Limited Vs General Manager Northern Railway Administration

Amit Kapoor Vs Kay Pan Products Pvt. Ltd.

Dr. Jai Prakash Narain Rao Vs State of U.P. and Another