Allowed

Ram Kishor Savita v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2021BAIL/15967/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court discarded a bail application of the applicant, who was involved in a case of maar peet causing grievous injury. The court granted bail on personal bond and sureties, subject to stringent conditions regarding attendance and conduct during the trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount, subject to conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15967 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Kishor Savita Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Phool Singh Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Fool Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 153 of 2020, under Sections 308, 323, 324, 352, 504 IPC, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Fatehpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the FIR version on 22nd June, 2020 at about 03.30. p.m. in the evening applicant and 3 co-accused committed maar peet with the wife of the informant about flowage of water. As per supplementary medical report, fracture of left pariental skull of head has been found. He submits that a general role of committing maar peet has been assigned to the applicant. He further submits that the co-accused Vipin Kumar and Vinay Kumar have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 11.06.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17821 of 2021 respectively therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that there is no criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 16.02.2021.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by submitting that grievous injuries has been caused to the injured and left skull pariental bone has been found fractured.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, general allegations levelled for committing maar peet and enlargement of co-

¶10

accused Vipin Kumar and Vinay Kumar on bail, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Ram Kishor Savita involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(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 him in accordance with law.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 15.7.2021/Israr

Ram Kishor Savita v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kishor Savita 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

Rahul yadav Vs State of U.P.

Dheeru Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Rani Vs State of U.P

Mobin Vs State of U.P.

Ramu Vs State of U.P. and Another