Allowed

Wasid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2021BAIL/14896/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal appeal involving IPC offences causing frivolity or alterable circumstances with similar co-accused already on bail. Conditional release with personal bond was granted due to court closure.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties temporarily, to be furnished within a month of normal court functioning.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14896 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Wasid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ved Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.611 of 2020, under Sections 356, 411, 413, 414 IPC, Police Station- Madanapur, District- Shahjahanpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.12.2020.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that initially the FIR was got registered by one Sipattar Singh under Section 394 IPC after the investigation the texture of the case got changed and charge sheet was submitted only under Sections 356, 411, 413 and 414 IPC. Submission made by the counsel that the present FIR was not named against anyone and during course of investigation, the name of the applicant has figure up identically situated co-accused Ravi, who was admitted on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl Misc. Bail Application No. 13505 of 2021.

¶8

I have perused the bail order of Ravi, the case of the applicant is identically similar to co-acccused Ravi and on the same day, the police has figured up four other cases to the credit of the applicant, which has been duly explained by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

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

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant-Wasid , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court

¶12

concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE/THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES IS/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

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

¶15

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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/APPLICANTS FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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/APPLICANTS IS/ARE 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 HIS/HER/THEIR IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(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/APPLICANTS.

¶18

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

¶19

Since the bail application has been decided under extraordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant/applicants to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶20

The applicant/applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is/are restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 12.7.2021

¶25

Abhishek Sri.

Wasid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wasid 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kapoor Chandra Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar @ Pavva Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Mandeep Vs State of U.P.and Another

Mohd. Abu Salim Vs State of U.P.

Sanoj Vs State of U.P.