Allowed

Dilip @ Munne v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2021BAIL/17029/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 304 IPC, the court held that the applicant, not named in FIR, made out a case for bail due to lack of abetment and reliance on Apex Court precedents and Article 21. Bail granted with personal bond, conditions to ensure attendance, and provisions for release without sureties initially due to court unavailability.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond (two sureties to be furnished within a month) subject to attendance conditions and case completion within one year.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17029 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Dilip @ Munne Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

¶7

The applicant, who is not named in the first information report, is facing prosecution in Case Crime No.43 of 2020, under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station- Jahanabad, District- Pilibhit and is in jail since 27.02.2020.

¶8

Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not even named in the first information report. The only allegation is that he was seen by the son of the deceased while running away from the place of occurrence. During the course of investigation it was surfaced that the applicant was having extra marital relation with the wife of the informant. Out of sheer guilt she has committed suicide.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no abetment or instigating on the part of the applicant nor any conduct would fall within four corner of Section 107 I.P.C..

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has relied upon two judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. V. Prakash Babu vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.1138-1139 of 2016 @ S.L.P (Crl) Nos. 5928-5929 of 2016 and Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujrat in Criminal Appeal No.811 of 2004.

¶11

This fact has not been disputed by learned A.G.A.

¶12

From perusal of the material on record and judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court I find that there is no abetment on the part of the applicant.

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and

¶14

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Dilip @ Munne, who is involved in aforementioned case 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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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. (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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. Order Date :- 11.1.2021

¶28

Asha

Dilip @ Munne v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip @ Munne 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P.

Parmila Devi Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh @ Shashi Kant Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Smt Sarvati Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Somvati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Meharwan Singh Vs State of U.P.