Allowed

Mohan @ Makarand v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2023BAIL/34214/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 439 CrPC for offences under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC. Court granted bail considering parity with co-accused already enlarged on bail, the circumstantial nature of evidence, lack of DNA report, and the applicant's prolonged incarceration.

What did the court decide?

Applicant-Mohan @ Makarand to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 20 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC, Police Station-Vaidpura, District-Etawah, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties

Mohan @ Makarand Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175038

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34214 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohan @ Makarand Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sikandar B. Kochar,Manoj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Sikandar B. Kochar, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Mohan @ Makarand, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 20 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC, Police Station-Vaidpura, District-Etawah during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 07.02.2022, a delayed FIR dated 26.02.2022 was lodged by first informant-Ram Veer Singh (father of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No. 0020 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station-Vaidpura, District-Etawah. In the aforesaid FIR, one person namely Mohan nominated as named accused whereas an unknown person has also been arraigned as accused.

¶10

The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is to the effect that Suhagini (daughter of first informant) aged about 21 years left home at around 02:00 PM on 07.02.2022 by telling that she is going to the market. However, she did not return home. Ultimately, on 09.02.2022, missing person report was lodged at the concerned Police Station. However, on 26.02.2022 when search was being conducted for locating the whereabouts of the missing daughter by the first informant, he received information that her daughter has probably being put to death by named accused Mohan along with his associates.

¶11

After above-mentioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer

¶12

proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C.

¶13

It is apposite to mention here that the dead body of deceased was not recovered. As such, neither the inquest of the body of deceased nor the post mortem of the body of deceased could be conducted. As such, the nature of death and cause of death of deceased remain a mystry.

¶14

During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined the following witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.:-

¶15

(i) Arun Kumar (Ex-employer of accused), (ii). Shakuntala Devi (Mother of deceased), (iii). Ramveer Singh (Father of deceased), (iv). Ragini (Sister of deceased), (v). Shobha (Sister of deceased), (vi). Anjali (Sister of deceased), (vii). Aman (brother of deceased), (viii). Priyanshu Yadav (Family Friend), (ix). Sunny (Family Friend), (x). Ravindra (Villager), (xi). Pinky (last seen deceased) and (xii). Sunny (lost seen deceased).

¶16

On the basis of statements of aforesaid witnesses, complicity of 3 persons namely Mohan @ Makarand, (named accused/applicant herein), Rahul Kushwaha and Smt. Kiran (wife of Mohan @ Makarand) came to surface. After aforesaid accused were arrested, Investigating Officer made the following recoveries either from their person or on their pointing out. The recoveries so made by the Investigating Officer are also detailed hereinunder:-

¶17

(i). Recovery of knife from Mohan @ Makarand. Blood Stains found on the knife on 27.02.2022.

¶18

(ii). Discovery of clothes of deceased on 27.02.2022. No blood stains found.

¶19

(iii). Recovery of clothes from Smt. Kiran Devi on 27.02.2022. No blood stains found.

¶20

(iv). Recovery of burnt mobile phone of deceased on 27.02.2022

¶21

(v). Recovery of clothes from Mohan and Rahul on 27.02.2022 No blood stains found.

¶22

Some of the recoveries made by the Investigating Officer were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. The document occurring at page 79 of the paper book describes the documents sent for Chemical Examination. The documents

¶23

mentioned at Sl. No. 1, 2 and 3 are not part of the recoveries made by the investigating officer. Subsequently, blood sample of deceased (EDTA-VOIL) was taken for DNA examination. Subsequently, swab of the accused-applicant was taken for benzidine examination. As per OPTI chip examination, human blood was found on the blue Jeans and Sandle presence of blood was found. However, there is no recovery memo of Sandle of applicant. Thereafter, the said articles and report were sent to the FSL laboratory for chemical examination . However, upto this state, there is no FSL report regarding D.N.A. and OPTI test in respect of above recoveries with the blood group of the deceased.

¶24

11.During the course of investigation, the statement of the accused were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where in they have admitted their guilt.

¶25

On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of applicant and 2 others is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the charge sheet dated 24.04.2022 whereby and whereunder aforementioned 3 persons have been charge sheeted under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC.

¶26

At the very outset, Mr. Sikandar B. Kochar, the learned counsel for applicant contends that charge sheeted co-accused Kiran Devi has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54210of 2022 (Kiran Devi Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein-under:-

¶27

" वररममनदमणणणकपककररजममनरपमररनमपत , आववददकमदकरनद व वककओर सवमम 0 अ 0 सस 0 20 सन 2022, अनरर धमरम 302, 201/34 भम 0 दस 0 दव 0, रमनमववदपमरम , जजलमइटमवमममजममनरपरममककरनवहवरमपसरमरदकयमरयमहव।

¶28

आववददकमकवदवदमनअजधवकमएवसदवदमनअपरशमसककयअजधवकमककसमनम ररमपतमवलवकमपररशवलनदकयम।

¶29

आववददकमकवदवदमनअजधवकमकमकरनहवदकआववददकमककइसपकररमम रलरएवसफजरररवकवसवझझठमफफसमयमरयमहव , उसनवकजररअपरमधकमररर नहहदकयमहव , आववददकमपरमसझचनमररपकटरममनममजदनहहहव , उसवदमथयम कहमनवकवआधमरपरबमदममइसअपरमधममससजलपदकयमरयमहव , घटनमकक पमरदमककरमयमशदवरमकरकवदवलमबसवदजरकरमयवरयवहवजजसकमककई सपषवकररनहहददयमरयमहव , यहमममलमपररणसरदरजनयसमकयपरआधमररर हव , अदभयकजनकरमनककवअनमसमरआववददकमककजजससमय , रमरवखवसरमन सवदररफरमरदकयमजमनमबरमयमजमरहमहववहअसतयहव , वमसरदवकरमयहहव

¶30

दकआववददकमऔरउसकवपदरककउसकवघरसवदद 0 22-2-2022 ककससबसजधर रमनवककपमजलसपकड़करलमयवऔरदकननककशमरवररकवममनजसकरपसव इरनमपरमदड़रदकयमदकपमजलसनवजककरवमयमऔरजककहलवमयमववसमहव दकनननवदकयम , आववददकमकवपमससवउसवइसअपरमधममससजलपकरनववमलव ककईवसरमबरममदनहहहहयवहवररमजकभवबरममदरवददखमयवरयवहववहफजर हव , पशररबरममदशमदइमसमड़व , बलमउजऔरपवटवककटनरकआववददकमकवहह औरनहवआववददकमककदनशमनदवहवपरयहसभवकपड़वआववददकमकवघरसव पमजलसनवबरममददकयमहव , पमजलसदमरमसभवपकमरककबरममदरवकककमयरवमहव एवसअनयकमयरवमहवएकहवददनरमनवपरमनरढ़नरआधमरपररवयमरदकयमरयम हव , आववददकमदनदरषहवररमवहइसपकररमम 28-2-2022 सवकमरमरमरमम दनरदहव , इसजलएआववददकमककजममनरपरछकड़ददयमजमय। दवदमनअपरशमसककयअजधवकमनवआववददकमकवदवदमनअजधवकमकवरकरकम पबलदवरकधकररवहहएरकरपसरमरदकयमदकआववददकमदमरमकमरररअपरमध ससजवयएवसरमभवरपककदरकमहव , इसजलएआववददकमककजममनरपरनछकड़म जमय।

¶31

आववददकमकवदवदमनअजधवकमकवरकरकवपररपवकयममपतमवलवपरउपलबध समरवमनरथयनएवसपररणसरदरयनकमसमगरपसवअवलककनकरनवकवबमद , सबझरनककपककदरऔरदकसवभवठकसदवरकधमतमकसममगवककअनमपणसरदरएवस उपलबधसममगवसवछवड़छमड़ककससभमवनमनहकनवकवरथयककदवखरवहहएमवरव रमयममआववददकमककजममनरपरममककरनवकमउपयमकआधमरहव।

¶32

अरतवमदकवरमरदकषपरदबनमककईदटपपरवदकएहहएआववददकमककउपरकक वदर अपरमधममससबसजधरनयमयमलयककसनरमदषपरवयदकररबसध - पतएवस अजधकधनरमदशकवदकसरमनवयपदरभझपसरमरकरनवपरदनमनजलजखरशररकव समरजममनरपरछकड़ददयमजमय।

¶33

1- आववददकमदवववचनमयमपरवकरकवददरमनअदभयकजनसमकयनकवसमर छवड़ड़छमड़नहहकरवरव। 2- आववददकम अदभयकजन समदकयन व पवदड़र / दशकमयरकरमर कक णरमयवरव / धमकमयवरवनहह।

¶34

3- आववददकमनयमयमलयकवआदवशनकमपमलनकरवरव , वहपरवकरकवददरमन दबनमककईअनमवशयकसररनजलएदनयरदरजरपरनयमयमलयममउपणसरर हकरवररमपरवकरममईममनदमरवसवसहयकरकरवरव।

¶35

4- आववददकमजममनरपरररहमहकनवकवबमदजममनरककसवरसतरमकमदमरपयकर नहहकरवरवऔरदकसवभवअपरमजधकरदरदवजधममजलपनहहहकरवनककई अपरमजधकककतयकरवरव।

¶36

5- आववददकमपतयकयमअपतयकरपसवमममलवकवरथयनसवपररदचरदकसवभव वयदकयमपमजलसअजधकमररयनककककईपलकभनयमधमककनहहदवरवनहवउनसव ककईवमयदमकरवरव , जजसकवकमररउनहमनयमयमलयममरथयनककउजमररकरनवसव दवरररहनमपड़व।

¶37

उपरककशररममसवदकसवकवउलसघनकवमममलवमम , परवकरनयमयमलयआववददकम ककजममनरदनयममनमसमररदकरनवककसवरसतहव। "

¶38

It is then contended that another charge sheeted co-accused Rahul Kushwaha has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 14.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30653 of 2023 (Rahul Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is extracted hereinunder:-

¶39

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

¶40

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Rahul Kushwaha, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 20 of 2022, under sections 302, 201/34 IPC, P.S. Vaidura, District Etawah.

¶41

The prosecution story in brief is that one Ramveer Singh has lodged an FIR on 26.02.2022 alleging therein that his daughter Km. Suhagini aged about 21 years is missing since 07.02.2022 about 2.00 P.M. by saying that she is going to market. On being search, it has been revealed that one Mohan son of Parwat Singh along with his friend have committed the murder of his daughter and her dead body has been hidden.

¶42

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. In the first information report the applicant is not named, his name has been surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Mohan, who is named in the FIR. One Parwat Singh who is father of the co-accused Mohan and father-in-law of Kiran Devi has informed the police on 23.02.2022 that police has took away his son and daughterin-law. During investigation the police has arrested the coaccused Mohan on 27.02.2022 and recovered a knife at his pointing out. Thereafter recovery of Saari, paticoat and Blouse of the co-accused has also been recovered which was worn by her at the time of committing the murder of Suhagani, whose case is based on the same footing with the case of Kiran Devi has been released on bail by this court on 02.05.2023 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 54210 of 2022. The recovery made from the possession of the applicant is not supported by any independent witness. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which,

¶43

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 applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.02.2022 having no criminal history.

¶44

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

¶45

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 applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶46

Let the applicant- Rahul Kushwaha, 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:-

¶47

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

¶48

ii) The applicant 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.

¶49

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶50

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings

¶51

against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶52

(V) The applicant 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 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶53

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶54

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 applicant to prison.

¶55

The bail application is allowed."

¶56

On the above premise, he submits that the case of present applicant is similar and identical to aforementioned co-accused. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which, the case of present applicant could be so distinguished from aforementioned co-accused so as to deny him bail. All the charge sheeted accused have been charge sheeted under the same Sections and therefore, there is no difference with regard to the prosecution case against each of the charge sheeted accused. On the above premise and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail orders of charge sheeted co-accused.. he, therefore, submits that applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶57

It is next contended that present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and therefore, there is no eye witness of the occurrence. The complicity of an accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence has to be decided in accordance with the parameters laid down by Apex Court for inferring the guilt of an accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 (Paragraph 152). However, up to this stage, none of the parameters laid down by Apex Court in aforementioned judgment are satisfied against applicant. No strong motive has emerged against applicant for committing the crime in question either. According to the learned counsel for applicant, the applicant was actually arrested by the

¶58

police on 27.02.2022 whereas his custody has been shown to be on 28.02.2022. It is in the interregnum, the recovery has been made. Attention of the Court was invited to the paragraphs 32 and 33 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, which reads as under:-

¶59

"32. That the falsity of the prosecution case can be seen from the prompt recoveries made by the police i.e.

¶60

(i) On 27.02.2022 at 18.05 knife recovered from joint pointing out of all accused persons near railway bridge;

¶61

(ii) On 27.02.2022 at 18.20 p.m. discovered jeans pant, top at the distance of 500 meters which is the other side of river from Yamuna bridge in joint operation together with flood relief team;

¶62

(iii) On 27.02.2022 at 18.30 p.m. discovered a Gamchha at the distance of 500 meters from Yamuna bridge in joint operation together with flood relief team;

¶63

(iv) On 27.02.2022 at 18.40 p.m. recovered Sari, blouse and petticoat allegedly worn by co accused Kiran Devi from a tin shade of her house.

¶64

33. That at the cost of repetition, recovery of knife has been shown at 18:05 near railway bridge, Jeans pant and top at 18:20, together with Gamchha at 18:30 from the other side and 500 meter away from the railway bridge when seen together with the recovery of Sari, blouse and petticoat of the co accused Kiran Devi from tin shade at 18:40 and that too after preparing recovery memos of alleged recoveries each time makes the entire recovery unbelievable and doubtful."

¶65

Reference has also been made to paragraphs 35 and 36 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application in support of the submission that the recovery so made are false. On the above premise, the recovery so made by the Investigating Officer have been seriously doubted by the learned counsel for applicant.For ready reference same is reproduced herein-under:-

¶66

"35. That recovery memo of alleged knife, jeans pant, top and Gamchha does not have signature of the co accused Kiran Devi whereas the co accused Kiran Devi has been shown present at the time of alleged recovery which is suggestive of a false case set up against the applicant and other co accused persons.

¶67

36. That perusal of all the four separate recovery memos go to show one common fact i.e. the SHO Rajiv Kumar police stationVaidpura, Etawah left the police station on 27.02.2022 at 17.29 by way of Rapat no. 39 together with informant/ PW-1 Ramvir Singh and the applicant Mohan@ Makarand as well as co accused persons Rahul and Kiran Devi but strangely enough all the said recovery memos do not contain the signature of PW-1 Ramvir Singh similarly signature of applicant Mohan a Makarand and co accused Rahul Kushwaha are absent on the recovery memo pertaining to six burnt substances of mobile phone further it can also be seen that signature of co accused Kiran Devi and PW-1 Ramvir Singh are absent on recovery memo of clothes of applicant and co-accused Rahul. A tabulated chart of the said recovery memo pertaining to signatures is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure-27 to this affidavit."

¶68

According to learned counsel for applicant, the evidence that has emerged against applicant are (i) his confessional statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., (ii) Discovery of articles belonging to the deceased. (iii) Recoveries made on the pointing of the applicant and other accused (iv) Some of the articles of the applicant and other accused which were recovered had blood stains. With reference to above, he submits that (a) no conviction can be made merely on the basis of confession (b) upto this stage, there is no D.N.A report regarding the article sent for D.N.A. examination. (c) All the articles of applicant and other accused which were examined and blood stains were found on the same are not part of the recovery alleged to have been made i.e. sandle of present applicant, sandle of Rahul and slippers of co-accused Kiran.(d) There is no scientific report to establish that the burnt mobile phone is of the deceased. He therefore submits that upto this stage, prosecution has failed to establish even prima facie the guilt of the accused/applicant.

¶69

Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 28.02.2022. As such, he has undergone more than 6 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged on the record of aforementioned case crime number necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial. He, therefore, submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the

¶70

applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶71

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The complicity of applicant in the crime in question is clearly established. Criminality committed by the charge sheeted accused is joint and common and therefore, no exception can be carved out in the case of applicant. The weapon of assault i.e. knife used in the commission of the crime was made on the pointing of applicant. The other recoveries made by the Investigating Officer on the pointing of applicant and other co-accused also clearly go to show his complicity in the crime in question. Much emphasis was laid by the learned A.G.A. on the statement of the accused/applicant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein he has admitted his guilt. It is thus urged that no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶72

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made and complicity of accused coupled with the fact that 2 other charge sheeted co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, all the charge sheeted accused have been charge sheeted under the same Sections, therefore, criminality alleged against applicant is joint and common, therefore, the same is incapable of separation or segregation, however, the other two co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, in spite of the fact that the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record distinguishing the case of present applicant from other bailed out charge sheeted coaccused or necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the recoveries alleged to have been made on the pointing of applicant on 27.02.2022 in a row do not inspire confidence at this stage, the averments made in paragraphs 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application doubting / disputing the recoveries so made, the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant contradicting the material that has emerged against applicant, which could not be controverted by the learned A.G.A. the clean

¶73

antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶74

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶75

Let the applicant-Mohan @ Makarand, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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:-

¶76

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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.

¶77

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶78

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶79

(iv) THE APPLICANT 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 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

¶80

THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶81

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶82

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶83

Order Date :- 22.8.2023 Vinay/YK

¶84

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohan @ Makarand v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan @ Makarand 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

Kaleem Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Asif Vs State of U.P.

Govind Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Sahani @ Vikesh Vs State of U.P.

Rajveer @ Raju Vs State of U.P.

Ankur Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others