Allowed

Ishwar Chandra Kasera and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Jun 2023BAIL/26458/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Ishwar Chandra Kasera and Chanda Devi during trial in a case involving 498-A and 304-B IPC. The court imposed six specific conditions including prohibitions on tampering with evidence, delaying trial, and absence from critical stages.

What did the court decide?

The applicants be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties with six specific conditions imposed.

Ishwar Chandra Kasera and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:127828

¶2

Court No. - 46

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26458 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ishwar Chandra Kasera And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yatharth Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants Ishwar Chandra Kasera And Chanda Devi seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 15 of 2023, under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ahroura, District Mirzapur.

¶8

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The inquest has been done in the presence of both the family members of the deceased and according to post mortem examination report the cause of death is hanging. No internal or external injury was found on the body of the deceased. The applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicants have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicants that they are ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make themselves available before the court whenever required and are also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon them. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are languishing in jail since 22.01.2023 having no criminal history.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let the applicants- Ishwar Chandra Kasera And Chanda Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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:-

¶12

i) The applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

ii) The applicants will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶15

(iv) The applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶16

(V) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.

¶17

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try

¶18

to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicants.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison.

¶20

The bail application is allowed .

¶21

Order Date :- 21.6.2023

¶22

RPD

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ishwar Chandra Kasera and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Chandra Kasera and Another 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

Rashid @ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Indrasen and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyamu Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Pal Vs State of U.P.

Shavej Vs State of U.P.