Allowed

Manoj Kumar Bhatt v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2021BAIL/35619/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 498A and 306 IPC, the court accepted counsel's submission regarding lack of evidence against the applicant for abetting the suicide. Citing Dataram Singh, the High Court allowed bail on a personal bond and two sureties, imposed strict attendance conditions, and ordered a accelerated trial timeline due to extraordinary circumstances.

What did the court decide?

The applicant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.

Manoj Kumar Bhatt Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35619 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Bhatt Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Diljun

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Case called out in the revised call. Name of Shri Ashutosh Diljun, Advocate has been shown as counsel for the informant but none has appeared on behalf informant.

¶6

Heard Shri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, 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.91 of 2020, u/s 498A, 306 I.P.C., P.S.-Rudhauli, District-Basti, is seeking his enlargement on bail during trial. The applicant is in jail since 16.6.2020.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the husband and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The father of the deceased has lodged the present F.I.R. on 07.6.2020 for the incident said to have taken place on 6.6.2020, u/s 498A and 302 I.P.C. against the applicant-husband and his entire family. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased in the year 2005 and the couple were blessed with three children. Further submission is that the postmortem report reveals that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself. I have perused the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the informant as well as the kids of the deceased. All these persons have given a different story in their respective statements, but fact remains that there is no allegation of any abetment, instigation or goading on the part of applicant. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that during lockdown period there was scarcity of funds and on this issue there was a serious quarrel and discord between the husband and wife, which might have led to this unfortunate incident. Submission is that taking into account that there is no direct evidence of abetment or instigation against the applicant which falls within the ambit of Section 107 I.P.C., the applicant may be released on bail. The applicant is in jail since 16.6.2020 having no criminal antecedents.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

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 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.

¶11

Let the applicant Manoj Kumar Bhatt, 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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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

¶16

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 :- 4.1.2021 M. Kumar

Manoj Kumar Bhatt v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Bhatt 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

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sartaj Vs State of U.P.

Mazid Ali Vs State of U.P and Another

Smt. Nanki Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Smt Yashoda Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sudama Vs State of U.P.