Allowed

Paramveer @ Praveen v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2021BAIL/7347/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application in a murder case involving circumstantial evidence and intoxication, noting the lack of ocular testimony. Bail was granted with strict conditions due to court dysfunction, deferring sureties until normal functioning resumes.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with deferred sureties and strict conditions regarding trial attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7347 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Paramveer @ Praveen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saksham Srivastava,Akhilesh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.56 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Atrauli, District-Aligarhs seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.02.2020.

¶7

Contention raised by the counsel that the prompt FIR has been lodged by Allanoor on the same day for the incident of 09.02.2020 at 20.58 hours for the incident said to have been taken place on 16.00 hours against the sole named accused applicant. It is contended by the counsel that the case hinges upon circumstantial evidence. There is no ocular testimony to the entire incident. It is contended that the only allegation against the applicant that the applicant is coming with him in a stage of intoxication and when the informant tried to nab him, he sneak away from the site and thereafter informant entered into a room where he saw that deceased was lying in a dead condition. During investigation, it has come out that there was some dispute and differences with regard to monetary transaction between them and the incident was took place in the stage of intoxication. More particularly there is single blow over the head of the deceased that too by brick.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Taking into account account the totality of the circumstances that the deceased was done to death in the stage of intoxication by brick by giving single blow of which there is no ocular testimony and the period of incarceration the application have already undergone, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant-Paramveer @ Praveen , 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/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE/THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES IS/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/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER/THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶13

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT/APPLICANTS FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶14

(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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/APPLICANTS IS/ARE 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 HIS/HER/THEIR IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶15

(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/APPLICANTS.

¶16

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

¶17

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/applicants to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶18

The applicant/applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is/are restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

Order Date :- 18.10.2021

¶23

Abhishek Sri.

Paramveer @ Praveen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramveer @ Praveen 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

Santosh Singh 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Abhishek Agrawal @ Abhishek Sahu Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Yadav Alias Vikki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abid Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kuamr Siddharth Vs State of U.P.

Sadanand Maurya Vs State of U.P.