Allowed

Rajendra Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Jun 2021BAIL/3740/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed bail to applicants Rajendra Singh and Smt. Munni Devi in a dowry death case. The applicant filed a personal bond due to lockdown restrictions preventing surety production. Conditions were imposed to ensure trial attendance and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on personal bond with two sureties later; directed to obey specific trial attendance conditions.

Rajendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3740 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh,Lokesh Kumar Mishra,Ashish Go Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Goyal

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

It is urged that as per the prosecution case, the marriage was solemnized on 10.2.2017; cause of death of deceased is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. It is further urged that the allegation against the applicants is general; applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law; husband (Lokesh) of the deceased used to torture her for dowry. It is further submitted that the applicants have no other reported criminal antecedent and they are languishing in jail since 4.12.2020, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicants undertake that, if enlarged on bail, they will never misuse their liberty and will co-operate in the trial.

¶7

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

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶9

Let the applicants Rajendra Singh and Smt. Munni Devi, involved in Case Crime No. 53 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Sikandrarau, District Hathras be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of

¶11

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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(vii) 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.

¶18

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.

¶19

The order reads thus:

¶20

"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to

¶21

lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accusedapplicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."

¶22

Order Date :- 29.6.2021 Kuldeep

Rajendra Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh 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

Paramhansh Saini @ Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Haneef Mohmmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amir Vs State of Up and Another

Rampal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gopinath Rawal Vs State of U.P.

Saroj and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another