Allowed

Chaitu Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2023/1048/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge granted bail to the applicant in a murder-cum-culpable homicide case by invoking the principle of parity with co-accused already on bail. The court imposed strict conditions regarding court attendance and cooperation with the trial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon personal bond and sureties under strict conditions regarding court attendance and no adjournment seeking.

Chaitu Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1048 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Chaitu Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Shukla,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.0286 of 2017, under Sections 147, 304 I.P.C., Police Station - Khandasa, District - Faizabad.

¶7

Initially the F.I.R. was lodged under Section 308 I.P.C. When the deceased died, the case was converted under Section 304 I.P.C. It is alleged that the deceased had gone to his in-laws place on 18.10.2017, where the wife of the deceased along with family members had beaten the deceased with Lathi and Danda and in injured condition, he was thrown out outside the village in a field. On getting information, father of the deceased came there and taken the injured to District Hospital, where he was admitted. The F.I.R. was lodged on 22.10.2017.

¶8

It is stated that the deceased had died on 05.12.2017, but during this period no statement of the deceased was recorded, As per postmortem report, the death was caused due to septicemic shock as result of ante-mortem injuries. There is no lifetime injury report on record. There was also old healed 8 cm present in Rt. Mid Skull to the supra cervical area size about 20 cm. In this case there is no eye witness account. All the witnesses who have been examined have not pointed out any overt act on behalf of applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the co-accused person namely, Maiku Ram, Bachchu Lal and Surendra @ Surendrey, who have been assigned the similar role, have been enlarged on bail by this Court

¶10

vide order dated 15.3.2019, 14.3.2019 and 14.3.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 2398 of 2018, 976 of 2019 and 9803 of 2018 respectively. He also submits that since similar role has been assigned to the applicant and case of the applicant is in parity with the co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. He has further submitted that charge-sheet has already been filed, there is no apprehension of absconding or tampering the evidence or witnesses.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of F.I.R. and fact that the co-accused person namely, Maiku Ram, Bachchu Lal and Surendra @ Surendrey, who have been assigned the similar role, have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.3.2019, 14.3.2019 and 14.3.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 2398 of 2018, 976 of 2019 and 9803 of 2018 respectively by this Court, therefore, on the principle of parity the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶14

Let the applicant Chaitu Ram , involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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

¶16

court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her 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.

¶18

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(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 her in accordance with law.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶21

Before parting with it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures as per law if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly. The learned trial court shall fix short dates to ensure that trial is concluded at the earliest.

¶22

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 20.1.2023 Om

¶24

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chaitu Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaitu Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

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

Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Other

Smt. Ram Dulari Alias Dulari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko.

Manorma Devi Alias Manorama Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. Lko.

Ajay Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Akhilesh Dubey S/O Pramod Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home