Allowed

Premdas v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2022BAIL/2084/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Premdas in a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court observed that the applicant has no prior criminal history and there is a delay in the trial. Bail was granted subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses and appearance in court.

What did the court decide?

released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of good conduct and appearance in court.

Premdas Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2084 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Premdas Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Bijai Nath Yadav,Niklank Kumar Jain,Prem Prakash Yadav,Vipin Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

There is allegation against the applicant in the FIR that he has caused the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

¶7

Counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation of burning the deceased by pouring kerosene oil has been assigned to the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law and not to the applicant. The allegation against the applicant is that he was a drunkered and used to consume liquor and ganja and thereafter indulge in violence with the deceased. The implication of the applicant in the present case is false. Trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. The applicant is in jail since 22.02.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶8

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, 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 recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing 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.

¶10

Let the applicant, Premdas, involved in Case Crime No. 49 of 2019, under Section- 304 IPC, Police Station- Jaithra, DistrictEtah, 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

¶11

issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶13

(ii) 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. 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.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) 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 then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(v) 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 him in accordance with law.

¶17

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

¶18

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.

¶20

Order Date :- 2.9.2022 Rohit

¶21

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.05 13:23:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Premdas v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premdas 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rajmohammad Shah Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Hoti Vs State of U.P.