Allowed

Basudev Goswami v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2022/3696/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to Basudev Goswami in a case under sections 34, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC. The judge balanced prima facie satisfaction regarding the charge against the applicant's age and Article 21 considerations, imposing strict conditions on the bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail during trial upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding witness tampering and court attendance.

Basudev Goswami Vs State of U.P. through Principal… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3696 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Basudev Goswami Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 61 of 2021, under Sections 34, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.Kumarganj, District Ayodhya.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Several F.I.Rs. were registered against the applicant arising out of dispute with regard to a company. The applicant has 19 cases previous criminal antecedent which have been explained in para 14 of the bail application. The applicant is not involved in committing the aforesaid offence. He further added that the present applicant is aged about 72 years of age and he is languishing in jail since 21.8.2021. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention but could not dispute the fact that the similar set of fact, the FIR lodged therein, the present applicant, has been enlarged on bail.

¶9

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Basudev Goswami involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

¶11

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶12

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code;

¶13

(3) 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.; and

¶14

(4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.10.2022 A.Kr*

¶18

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.10.16 21:08:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Basudev Goswami v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basudev Goswami v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Lko.

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

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department Lucknow

Nand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home Civil Secrt.Lko

Pradeep Kumar @ Dakiya Vs State of U.P. Thru, Prin, Secy. Home, Lko

Manoj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Raj Kumar Kushwaha @ Aryan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohammad Ubaid Vs State of U.P.