Allowed

Dinesh and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2021BAIL/26335/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court granted bail to two accused persons in a criminal trial involving offences under IPC and the Epidemic Act. The court allowed release without sureties initially due to extraordinary circumstances during the pandemic, with a requirement to furnish sureties once courts resumed normal functioning.

What did the court decide?

Accused to be released on bail by executing personal bond without sureties initially, to be furnished within a month after courts resume normal functioning.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26335 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Dinesh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shahroze Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shahroze Khan, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicants who are involved in Case Crime No. 56 of 2020, under Sections 304, 323, 504, 188, 269, 270 I.P.C., Section 3 of Epidemic Act and Section 51-Kha of Disaster Management Act, Police Station- Chilhiya, DistrictSiddharth Nagar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicants are in jail since 7.4.2020.

¶7

Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicants is that the present F.I.R. was got registered by one Rampreet on 7.4.2020 against three named accused persons including the applicants. It is further submitted that other named co-accused Smt. Susheela has already been admitted on bail by this Court today itself in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25929 of 2020. Adopting the same reasoning, the applicants may also be enlarged on bail on the principals of parity.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicants- Dinesh and Rajesh , who are involved in Case Crime No. 56 of 2020, under Sections 304, 323, 504, 188, 269, 270 I.P.C., Section 3 of Epidemic Act and Section 51-Kha of Disaster Management Act, Police Station- Chilhiya, DistrictSiddharth Nagar, be released on bail on each of them 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.

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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.

¶12

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

¶13

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR 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 THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A I.P.C.

¶14

(iv) THE 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 APPLICANTS 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 THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following

¶18

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

¶19

The applicants 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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 20.1.2021 Vikas

Dinesh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh and Another 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

Ramanand Singh Vs State of Up

Manish Upadhyay Vs State of U.P.

Dhaniram Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Ji Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Mitesh Vs State of U.P.

Shabnam Khatoon Vs State of U.P.