Allowed

Hari Kishan @ Hari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2021BAIL/6042/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Section 306 I.P.C., the High Court released the applicant on bail. The court found no overt action by the applicant to instigate suicide, noting that all parties involved were intoxicated. Bail was granted with strict conditions regarding trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with furnishing of personal bond and two sureties to be verified with court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6042 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Hari Kishan @ Hari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Singh Rajawat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Ms. Shilpa Ahuja, Advocate has filed her vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Shilpa Ahuja, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 298 of 2020, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Kulpahad, District- Mahoba is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is in jail since 19.10.2020.

¶8

Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the present F.I.R. was registered by one Vindravan Ahirwar under Section 306 I.P.C. on 18.10.2020 against six named accused persons with the allegation that there was a Marpeet between named accused persons and his son in the stage of intoxication, and thereafter, the deceased went on motorcycle and committed suicide on the railway track. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that since there was a Marpeet between them and this is the basic cause of commission of suicide.

¶9

To my mind, there is no over or overt action on the part of the applicant to instigate or abet the deceased to take this extreme step and there are two other persons in the stage of intoxication.

¶10

Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the totality of the circumstances that all of them were heavily drunk and there was a Marpeet which would not fall within the definition of Section 107 I.P.C. and said to be liable for abetment, instigation or goading on the

¶12

part of the applicant, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Hari Kishan @ Hari , who is involved in Case Crime No. 298 of 2020, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Kulpahad, District- Mahoba, 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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 I.P.C.

¶16

(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 I.P.C.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶19

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

¶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

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

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

Order Date :- 28.1.2021

¶26

Vikas

Hari Kishan @ Hari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Kishan @ Hari 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

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jugendra Vs State of Up

Serazuddin Vs State of U.P.

Ishaq Ali Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Surjeet Singh Vs State of U.P.