Allowed

Ram Dayal @ Rajkumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2023BAIL/43577/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to the applicant, Ram Dayal, accused of murder under Section 302 IPC. The court cited jail overcrowding and delay in investigation, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The order imposed strict conditions for the applicant's presence and conduct during the trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions ensuring presence in court and preventing tampering with evidence.

Ram Dayal @ Rajkumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:214281

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43577 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Dayal @ Rajkumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ram Dayal @ Rajkumar , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 813 of 2018(S.T. No. 265 of 2018) , under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station Ajeetmal, DistrictAuraiya, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant of causing offence of murder. He is the main accused named in FIR.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that before the trial court six out of thirteen prosecution witnesses have been examined. This is the first implication of applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 11.10.2018.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, she does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime

¶12

be released on bail 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 that :-

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months as per Section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Registrar(Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court below within ten days .

¶22

Order Date :- 7.11.2023 Abhishek

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Dayal @ Rajkumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dayal @ Rajkumar 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

Gaindan Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hira Lal Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Ankush @ Ankul Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Vs State of U.P.