Allowed

Neeraj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2022BAIL/19170/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to an applicant accused of kidnapping and murder under Sections 364-A and 368 IPC. Though the applicant had previously absconded and surrendered, the court found it a fit case for bail, imposing strict conditions regarding attendance and prohibition of adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions to ensure presence and prevent misuse.

Neeraj Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19170 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Neeraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.635 of 2005, under Sections364-A, 368 IPC, (S.T. No.762 of 2006) Police StationBannadevi, District - Aligarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is further submitted that the applicant was initially enlarged on bail by this Court on 18.05.2006. Thereafter, the applicant attended the trial and after some time he absconded from the proceeding. Non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant on 10.11.2021. The applicant has surrendered before the court on 4.4.2022. It is next submitted that the applicant went to out of station for earning his livelihood and he suffered from illness therefore, he could not appear before the trial court for attending the dates in trial. Therefore, bail granted earlier to the applicant was cancelled. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.4.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶10

Let applicant, namely, Neeraj, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction

¶11

of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that the applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. In case of absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against the applicant under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iii) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure the applicant's 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against the applicant, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) 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 the applicant in accordance with law.

¶16

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.9.2022 S.K.

¶18

(Piyush Agrawal,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by SWEETY KANOJIA Date: 2022.09.15 17:38:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neeraj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj 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

Ang Pratap Bhan Singh @ Satendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Tanjeem Vs State of U.P.

Haidar Vs State of U.P.

Bilal Vs State of U.P.

Khalid @ Pawwa Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.