Allowed

Bhai Lal v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy.Prin. Secy.Deptt. of Home .

Allahabad HC26 May 2022/1646/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail Application accepted by the High Court. The court held that despite the serious nature of offences (Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC), the applicant made out a case for bail invoking Article 21. Bail granted subject to strict conditions including personal bond, sureties, and specific undertakings regarding court attendance and testifying.

What did the court decide?

Applicant allowed bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions of attendance and undertaking against delay.

Bhai Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy.Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1646 of 2022 Applicant :- Bhai Lal

¶3

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy.Prin. Secy.Deptt. Of Home .

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Purshottam Chaurasia,Prashant Kumar Chaurasia,Rajendra Pratap Singh,Surendra Singh,Vinay Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag.S.Kaalesh

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.S. Tomar, learned AGA for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

¶7

By means of the present application, the applicant- Bhai Lal, seeks bail in Case Crime No.0146 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Gosainganj, DistrictLucknow, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant along with Mohuddeen Haider, Zaid Haider, Shabeen Haider, Chad Mohammad and Irfan are stated to have sold the land of the Informant which he had inherited from his father to Abrar Ali by impersonation.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant was the main perpetrator of the crime. He is the marginal witness as per the registered sale-deed and has nothing to do with the said offence. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.11.2021 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶10

Per contra, Sri J.S. Tomar, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

Let the applicant- Bhai Lal, who is involved in the aforementioned case crime number 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 IPC.

¶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 IPC.

¶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

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

Order Date :- 26.5.2022 Siddhant

¶21

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SAHU Date: 2022.05.26 17:22:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhai Lal v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy.Prin. Secy.Deptt. of Home .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhai Lal v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy.Prin. Secy.Deptt. of Home .

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

Jaswant Singh @ Toni Vs State of U.P. through Secretary (Home) Civil Secretariat U.P. Lucknow

Manjhile Tiwari @ Parmeshwar Lal Tiwari Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy.

Prahlad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jitendra Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Shubham @ Lala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko.

Chaman Lal Diwakar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.