Allowed

Gahukaran v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2021BAIL/36498/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application concerning charges under Sections 147, 148, 304, 323 IPC for a riot resulting in death, the High Court allowed the applicant's Bail Application but imposed strict conditions precedent for furnishing a personal bond and two sureties once courts resume normal functioning.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on a personal bond without sureties temporary to the extent of normal functioning of courts, subject to furnishing two sureties within a month thereafter.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36498 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Gahukaran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Dhar Dubey,Pavan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shri Prakash Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.54 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 304, 323, 325, 336, 352 IPC, Police Station-Lar, District-Deoria is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that though the FIR was got registered on 10.03.2020 at 18:03 hours for the incident said to have been taken place on the same day at 10:00 hours by one Arun Kumar Mishra against as many as seventeen named accused persons attributing general role of stone pelting and wielding lathi and danda. In this transaction, Shyamanand Mishra lost his life whereas five other persons sustained injuries. The next contention is that in fact this is a cross-case where both sides have sustained injuries. It is next contended that after one and half months from the side of the applicant, another FIR was got registered as Case Crime No.83 of 2020 at Police Station-Lar, District-Deoria by Smt. Gayatri Devi naming fourteen persons with similar allegations of stone pelting and wielding lathi and danda. In this cross-case, Rajat, Shubham, Amit, Sonu and two others got injured. There was a free fight between two groups. In this fight, unfortunately, Shymanand Mishra lost his life. The post mortem report of the deceased Shyamanand reveals that he sustained as many as eight injuries over his person. Out of this furious mob, 17 persons were pelting stone and it cannot be said with certainty as to who has caused the fatal injuries to the deceased. Moreover, this is a cross-case and it is not possible to ascertain at this stage as to which group was aggressor over the other group. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court towards 'Majeed Bayan' of the informant and others, in which they themselves have filtered few names of accused persons casting serious doubts over the prosecution

¶8

story itself and actual number of assailants. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.03.2020.

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail mentioning therein that out of 17 persons, only five accused persons have surrendered so far and rest of the accused persons are roaming and extending threats.

¶10

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.

¶11

Let the applicant, Gahukaran , who is involved in case crime no.54 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 304, 323, 325, 336, 352 IPC, Police Station-Lar, District-Deoria, 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 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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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-:

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

It is open for the concern Magistrate to take coercive action against the accused persons who have not yet surrendered and ensure the presence of absconded persons but this could not be the ground for denying the liberty of bail to the accused persons.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.1.2021 Sumit S

Gahukaran v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gahukaran 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

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

Smt Yashoda Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Bhatt Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Rekha Vs State of U.P.

Tasleem Vs State of U.P.

Chandrapal Vs State of U.P.