Allowed

Serazuddin v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2021BAIL/17904/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to applicant Serazuddin charged under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, relying on parity with co-accused released on bail and applicant's elderly status. Bail granted without sureties initially due to lockdown constraints.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on execution of personal bond without immediate sureties, to be furnished within a month of court resumption; strict conditions imposed on presence and procedural compliance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17904 of 2020 Applicant :- Serazuddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh,Ajai Kumar Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Bahadur Yadav Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶2

Heard Sri P.K.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶3

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.218 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Lohata, District- Varanasi is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.10.2019.

¶4

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the co-accused Sher Ali has already been admitted on bail by this Court by order dated 19.11.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30202 of 2020. He further submitted that the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accusedSher Ali. It is further contended that the applicant who is elderly person and separately resides. He lastly submitted that the applicant who is in jail since 26.10.2019, is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶5

In this relation supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing the ration card of the applicant which clearly shows that the applicant has a distinct and separate entity. The other co-accused are languishing in jail.

¶6

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.

¶7

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.

¶8

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

¶9

(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.

¶10

(ii) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER/THEIR COUNSEL. IN

¶11

CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

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/applicants to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 27.1.2021/Abhishek Sri.

Serazuddin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Serazuddin 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

Akshan Vs State of U.P.

Nathu Lal Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Pratap Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jugendra Vs State of Up

Satya Pal Vs State of U.P.