Allowed

Chand Babu @ Kallu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Dec 2021BAIL/42353/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed bail to the applicant in a case under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. The court noted co-accused release, no arrest on spot, and lack of tampering risk, imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount with specific conditions regarding court attendance and witness safety.

Chand Babu @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42353 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Chand Babu @ Kallu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 46 of 2021, under Section 3/5/8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Police Station Satti, District Kanpur Dehat, during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Naim has been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28575 of 2021. It is further urged that no recovery was made from possession of the applicant; applicant was not arrested on the spot; name of the applicant surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused; prior to the incident, applicant has no criminal antecedent; applicant is languishing in jail since 26.08.2021. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail, however, does not dispute the fact.

¶9

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Chand Babu @ Kallu , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 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

¶13

Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶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. 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.

¶15

(iv) The applicant 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.

¶16

However, It is made clear that in case the applicants indulge in intimidating or threatening any witness, the State or Prosecutor would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.12.2021 Mukesh Kr.

Chand Babu @ Kallu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chand Babu @ Kallu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akram Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Jatav Vs State of U.P.

Monu Singh @ Munindra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Vs State of U.P.

Afzal Vs State of U.P.