Allowed

Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2024/1075/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant, who is the jeth of the deceased, granting parity with a co-accused already released on bail. The court imposed standard bail conditions regarding appearance, non-interference, and issuance of proclamations if necessary.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering, intimidation, and ensuring court attendance.

Shyam Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11681

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1075 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shyam Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Pratap Singh Yadav,Shraddha Gupta,Vimlesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is Jeth of the deceased. It is also submitted that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. There is no injury on the body of the deceased. The applicant was residing separately with his wife Gudiya who has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 14992 of 2023. While enlarging co-accused Gudiya on bail, the Court has noted that in the ration card which was filed by her, the address of the applicant has been shown as 118, Nayapurwa, Lohati Saraiyan, Rudauli, Faizabad. He seeks parity with the order of the co-accused Gudiya.

¶8

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.07.2023 without having any criminal antecedent. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact it is a case of parity.

¶10

On due consideration to the fact that co-accused Gudiya who was assigned similar role has been enlarged on bail, coupled with the fact the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.07.2023 without having any criminal antecedent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant, Shyam Lal, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 94/2023, under Sections 498A/304B/504/506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Baba Bazar, District - Ayodhya/Faizabad, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(iv) 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.

¶17

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

(vi) 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. 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

Order Date :- 7.2.2024 R.C.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harikesh @ Matole Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Abu Sahma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Surendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Murad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Mohd. Arshad Iqbal Alias Arsh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Suraj Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko.