Allowed

Hoti v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2022BAIL/3361/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a second bail application in a murder case where the trial remained incomplete after one witness examination. The judgment granted bail with strict conditions regarding trial presence and prohibits tampering with evidence or seeking adjournments, directing the trial court to conclude the trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties under strict conditions preventing evidence tampering, adjournment abuse, and absence during trial stages.

Hoti Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3361 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Hoti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Prabhakar Singh,Akhilesh Singh,Praveen Kumar,Satya Pal Singh 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

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This is second bail application of the applicant.

¶8

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 17.07.2018 by the coordinate Bench of this court which is not available now.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that while rejecting the bail application this court directed the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible but till date the trial has not been concluded. Only one prosecution witness has been examined. The applicant is in jail since 05.12.2018 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

Let the applicant, Hoti, involved in Case Crime No. 267 of 2018, under Section- 302 IPC, Police Station- Dhanari, DistrictSambhal, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of

¶13

the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 2.9.2022 Rohit

¶23

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.05 17:47:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hoti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hoti 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

Statutes considered

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.

Premdas Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.