Allowed¶9

Pintoo and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2022BAIL/41529/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court bail order dated 11.10.2022 in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 41529 of 2022 (Pintoo and Tinkoo vs. State of U.P.), Coram: Shiv Shanker Prasad, J. Bail allowed in Case Crime No. 153 of 2022, Sections 392 and 354Kha IPC, P.S. Awagarh, District Etah; applicants in jail since 20.07.2022; grounds: delay of three days in FIR, no recovery of looted article, medical report not supporting prosecution story, no criminal history; bail conditions invoking Sections 229-A and 174-A IPC and Sections 82 and 313 Cr.P.C.; observations confined to bail disposal.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Pintoo and Tinkoo released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (i) to (iv) regarding attendance and conduct during trial.

Pintoo and Another Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants Pintoo and Tinkoo should be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 153 of 2022 under Sections 392, 354Kha I.P.C., Police Station Awagarh, District Etah, during the pendency of the trial.

¶6

Court's answer

Bail application allowed; the applicants to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Condition (i): the applicants shall file an undertaking not to seek adjournment on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present; default may be treated as abuse of liberty of bail.

¶10

Key takeaways

Condition (ii): the applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, personally or through counsel; absence without sufficient cause may invite proceedings under Section 229-A IPC.ratio¶11
Condition (iii): on misuse of bail liberty, if proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear on the date fixed, the trial court shall initiate proceedings under Section 174-A IPC.ratio¶12
Condition (iv): the applicants shall remain present in person at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; deliberate or unexplained absence may be treated as abuse of liberty of bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — granted. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.) allowed the bail application of Pintoo and Tinkoo in Case Crime No. 153 of 2022 under Sections 392 and 354Kha I.P.C., Police Station Awagarh, District Etah, where they were in custody since 20.07.2022. The defence relied on a three-day delay in lodging the FIR without plausible explanation, non-recovery of any looted article from the applicants, a medical report not supporting the prosecution story as per the FIR and statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and absence of criminal history; the learned A.G.A. opposed but could not dispute these factual submissions. Bail was granted on a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount, subject to conditions: an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; presence on every date fixed (default punishable under Section 229-A IPC); initiation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC upon misuse of liberty and non-appearance after proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.; and personal presence at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the bail application and did not reflect on the ultimate merits.

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41529 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pintoo And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants- Pintoo and Tinkoo with a prayer to enlarge them on bail in Case Crime No. 153 of 2022, under Sections 392, 354Kha I.P.C., Police Station- Awagarh, District- Etah, during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case for the purpose of harassment. It is further submitted that there is delay of three days in lodging the FIR and no plausible explanation has been given for delay. It is next submitted that no looted article was recovered from the possession of the applicants. It is also submitted that the medical report does not support the prosecution story as alleged in the FIR as well as statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicants are in jail since 20.07.2022.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶9

Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release of the accused, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, let the applicants involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶11

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

¶12

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 11.10.2022 SK Srivastava

¶16

Digitally signed by SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.10.12 14:28:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pintoo and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintoo and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mehtab Vs State of U.P.

Abhilesh Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Aslam Vs State of U.P.

Faisal Vs State of U.P.

Mintu Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Gautam @ Mohit Vs State of U.P.