Allowed

Sunil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Oct 2021BAIL/20961/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application regarding kidnapping and assault where son was recovered same day, court held that applicant made out case for bail despite criminal antecedents due to delayed FIR and no ransom. Bail granted with personal bond, special conditions on attendance and trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond without sureties temporarily, satisfy court below within one month after courts restored.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20961 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sunil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Wahid Jamal, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

¶7

By means of the present bail application the applicant, who is facing prosecution in connection with Case Crime No.0036 of 2020, u/s 364, 504, 507 I.P.C., P.S.-Siana, District-Bulandshahr, is seeking his enlargement on bail during trial. The applicant is in jail since 06.02.2020.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present F.I.R. was got registered by Mahesh Chand on 06.02.2020 at 03.39 A.M. for the alleged incident dated 04.02.2020 at 05.00 P.M. u/s 363, 504, 507 I.P.C. against the applicant and two unknown for the alleged act of kidnapping of his son Manish (14 years). The boy was eventually recovered on that very day of lodging of the F.I.R. and he revealed that in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that his Jija (the applicant) had kidnapped him on account of release of his wife Sima. There was no ransom amount demanded by the applicant. The F.I.R. is delayed by two days and no plausible justification is coming forward for the same. The corpus has been recovered unscratched and without any damage. Moreover, the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the present bail application is none other than the wife of the applicant. Husband and wife are residing peacefully. The applicant has got criminal antecedents of seven cases, which has been duly explained by filing supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 06.02.2020.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by mentioning that the applicant has got a chequered past having criminal antecedents of seven cases, but could not dispute the above facts.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record

¶11

regarding complicity of the accused and 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.

¶12

Let the applicant Sunil , 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 satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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-:

¶21

1. 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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

4. 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 27.10.2021 M. Kumar

Sunil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

Vikas Kumar @ Heeru Vs State of U.P.

Vicky Vs State of U.P.

Himmat Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Akram Vs State of U.P.

Ramveer Singh @ Bhure Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Akil Jaha @ Akhatari Vs State of U.P.