Allowed

Sachin Baitha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Sept 2021BAIL/14353/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav allowed bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused in a Section 363 IPC case, imposing strict conditions regarding court attendance and prohibiting adjournment during evidence, while noting the accused's claim of being the victim's companion and lack of serious allegations.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions of appearance and no adjournment during evidence.

Sachin Baitha Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14353 of 2021 Applicant :- Sachin Baitha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Juned Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶3

Counter affidavit on behalf of State as well as rejoinder affidavit on behalf of applicant have been filed today, which are taken on record.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶5

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.523 of 2020, under Section 363 IPC, Police Station Tarya Sujan, District Kushi Nagar.

¶6

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the impugned first information report and also the bail rejection order.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The incident took place on 24.12.2020 whereas the impugned first information report has been lodged on 28.12.2020 and the police has prepared recovery memo on 29.12.2020. He further submits that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. on 29.12.2020 and 08.01.2021 respectively, has not levelled any serious allegation against the applicant. She has stated in her statement that she herself gone in the company of applicant with her own sweet will. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 30.12.2020.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶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 fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Sachin Baitha , 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

¶11

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 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 :- 30.9.2021/Ajeet

Sachin Baitha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Baitha 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

Sabir Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Pratap Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shahbaz Vs State of U.P.

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P.

Anoop Vs State of U.P.

Akash @ Asif Vs State of U.P. and Another