Allowed

Naresh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2021BAIL/4868/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal miscellaneous bail application No. 4868 of 2021, the High Court allowed bail for the applicant charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, directing execution of a personal bond without sureties pending the restoration of normal court functioning.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond without sureties until normal court functioning is restored, to be replaced by two sureties thereafter.

Naresh Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4868 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Naresh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tanzeel Ahmad,Akash Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Akash Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Kumar Dhananjay, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present bail application the applicant, who is facing prosecution in connection with Case Crime No.678 of 2020, u/s 304 I.P.C., P.S.-Kharkhauda, District-Meerut, is seeking his enlargement on bail during trial. The applicant is in jail since 07.11.2020.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that an F.I.R. was got registered by one Prem Prakash s/o the deceased on the same day of the incident i.e. 05.11.2020 at 4.35 evening, with the allegations that the deceased was carrying out a roadside teashop and the applicant went there and took certain refreshment and when the deceased demanded money in lieu of the same, there was a minor scuffle between them and on account of which the deceased died after few hours. The allegation in the F.I.R. is very clear that there was a minor scuffle and no weapon has been used in this transaction. The postmortem report of the deceased too clearly indicates that the deceased has died on account of Cerebral damage due to antemortem head injuries as there is contusion on the left side forehead along with traumatic swelling. Fact remains that there was a minor scuffle on a trivial issue and the deceased was about 50 years and this scuffle might have led to cause such injuries having no intention to kill him. The applicant is in jail since 07.11.2020 having no criminal antecedents.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

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 Naresh, 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 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

¶17

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 :- 22.1.2021 M. Kumar

Naresh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh 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 Vs State of U.P.

Diwakar @ Lavlesh Vs State of U.P.

Gulabshri @ Gulbari Vs State of U.P.

Akshan Vs State of U.P.

Nathu Lal Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Pratap Vs State of U.P.