Allowed

Baliram @ Sadhoo v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2021BAIL/13412/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. allowed to Baliram @ Sadhoo coercing a bonded plea and multiple sureties. Conditions imposed to ensure attendance for evidence and prevent default under IPC/Cr.P.C. sections, with an undertaking not to misuse liberty.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions ensuring court attendance throughout the trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13412 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Baliram @ Sadhoo Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Mohan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.112 of 2020, under Sections 269, 270, 323, 324, 308, 506 I.P.C., Section 3 of the Epidemic Act and Section 51(B) of the Disaster Management Act, Police Station Khesaraha, District Siddharth Nagar.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the alleged incident took place on 20.07.2020 whereas the F.I.R. has been registered on 22.07.2020. No satisfactory explanation has been given in the affidavit for delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is further submitted that seven injuries were found on the body of the victim and except injury nos.1 & 2, rest of the injuries are simple in nature. X-Ray was also conducted but after the delay of 7 days of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that there is no independent witnesses of the alleged incident. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 23.12.2020, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail. He submits that the investigation is now complete and the charge sheet has been filed.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a

¶10

fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Baliram @ Sadhoo , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his 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.

¶12

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

¶13

(ii) 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 IPC.

¶14

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶15

(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 him in accordance with law.

¶16

(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 applicant.

¶17

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

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.9.2021 pks

Baliram @ Sadhoo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baliram @ Sadhoo 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

Zishan @ Lamboo Vs State of U.P.

Satya Prakash @ Satto Vs State of U.P.

Sundar Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Jaiswal @ Kunal Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.