Allowed

Pramila v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023BAIL/8073/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment is a bail application in a murder case. The High Court granted bail to the applicant Pramila by relying on parity with a co-accused and broader constitutional considerations regarding jail overcrowding, without explicitly deciding on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

Pramila Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178697

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8073 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pramila Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atmaram Nadiwal,Dinesh Kumar Yadav 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, Pramila, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 393 of 2022, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Ahraula, District- Azamgarh, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the coaccused Rajaram, has been granted bail by this Court on 13.3.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10682 of 2023. The case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity for the reasons given in bail application of co-accused. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.11.2022.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but does not dispute the claim of parity.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, 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 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 that :-

¶11

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

¶12

(ii) 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 Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶13

(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 her absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may

¶14

proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) In case the applicant misuse 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.

¶16

(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 her in accordance with law.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 15.9.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pramila v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramila 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

Vyas Sahani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lavkush Kumar Patwa Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Km Pratiksha Vs State of U.P.

Ankoor Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Hargovind Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.