Allowed

Jagdish v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2021BAIL/43299/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application by Jagdish in a criminal case involving Sections 457, 380, and 411 IPC was allowed despite being the third application. The High Court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail without commenting on the case merits, subject to strict conditions regarding evidence tampering, witness pressure, and court attendance, addressing delays caused by the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two local sureties subject to conditions regarding evidence tampering and court attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43299 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Jagdish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Usha Srivastava,Arjit Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.68 of 2011, under Sections 457, 380, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Tarya Sujan, District Kushi Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the third bail application, first bail was rejected on 07.11.2016 with a direction that the trial court shall make every sincere endeavour to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same at the earliest and second bail was rejected on 28.08.2017 with a direction that the trial court shall make all sincere endeavours to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party. He further submits that despite the direction of the Court till now the trial has not been concluded. He further also submits that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that there is no criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 30.08.2016.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by submitting that this is the third bail application there is no delay on the part of the prosecution, due to Covid-19 witnesses could not be examined.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, incarceration period of the applicant, nature of the offence and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Jagdish involved in aforesaid case crime be

¶10

released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant 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 Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 25.1.2021 Zafar

Jagdish v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish 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

Siddharth Jain Vs State of U.P.

Salman @ Prince Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Samrath Vs State of Up

Sachin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aslam Khan @ Aslam Sadiq Rana Vs State of U.P.