Allowed

Mintu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jun 2021BAIL/5485/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Mintu challenging his detention in a case under Sections 354, 506 IPC alleged to arise from a neighbourhood dispute regarding drainage water flow. The single judge allowed the bail application considering the nature of the offence and jail overcrowding during the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount with specific conditions for appearance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5485 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mintu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Verma,Deepak Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State through video conferencing mode.

¶6

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No.310 of 2020 at Police Station-Jamunapar, District-Mathura on 01.10.2020 under Sections 354, 506 IPC.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-I, Mathura on 19.11.2020.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 21.10.2020, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Sri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant contends that an F.I.R. was lodged over a neighbourhood dispute relating to flow of drainage water. The complainant has taken advantage of the vulnerable position of the applicant and got the F.I.R. registered. A perusal of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. shows that the applicant has not physically assaulted the alleged victim. It is categorically contended that the applicant is not interested in

¶10

marrying the alleged victim. To show his bona fides, Sri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant shall not meet or even try to talk with the alleged victim against her own will. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that admittedly a number of cases are pending against him. He, however, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in most of the cases. He has been granted bail in other cases. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who respects the rights of the other citizens including his neighbours. The applicant has explained his criminal history. Lastly it is submitted by Sri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶11

Learned A.G.A could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India) . These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶13

I see merit in the submissions of Sri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and

¶14

accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Mintu be released on bail in Case Crime No.310 of 2020 at Police Station-Jamunapar, District-Mathura registered on 01.10.2020 under Sections 354, 506 IPC, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either through his counsel or personally as and when directed by the learned trial court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

(ii) 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. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, the trial in order to secure his presence

¶19

may issue a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In case the applicants fail 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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(vii). In case the applicant violates the above said conditions or harass the victim girl in any manner, the learned trial court shall proceed for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶23

Order Date :- 8.6.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Mintu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mintu 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

Harish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anil Devid Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sunil @ Ghansu Vs State of U.P.

Suhail Vs State of U.P.

Yaseen Vs State of U.P.