Allowed

Darbari v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Govt. Lko.

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024/7163/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application in a criminal trial. The applicant, previously absconding, argued false implication and reliance on a co-accused granted bail. Considering the co-accused bail and lack of flight risk, the court granted bail subject to stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the bail application and released the accused on personal bond with two heavy sureties subject to stringent conditions.

Darbari Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49353

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7163 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Darbari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Govt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Awasthi,Amit Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary and charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶8

Heard Shri Amit Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Darbari in case Crime No. 178/1997, under Sections 395/397/412 IPC, Police Station Isanagar, District Kheri, during trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The applicant was earlier granted bail in the above mentioned case, however, he failed to remain present before the trial court and coercive process was issued against him and was ultimately arrested by the police and detained in prison again since 5.4.2024.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant has never willfully attempted to avoid his presence before the trial court and it was on account of the circumstances which was beyond the control of the applicant he could not remain present before the trial court as the counsel engaged before the trial court has not provided requisite information to the applicant. However, he undertakes that he will remain present before the trial court on each and every date when the case was listed and would not seek any adjournment especially when the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance.

¶12

It is further submitted that criminal history of four cases has adequately been explained in paragraph 23 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail in this case since 5.4.2024and here is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶13

It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused person, namely, Shriram @ Shriram Lodh has been granted bail by this Court vide order 29.2.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 663 of 2024.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant is absconder and he has remained absconded many years and was apprehended by elaborate efforts made by the police under the order of the trial court and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that earlier the applicant was granted bail in this case, however, he remained absent from the trial court for a long time and was ultimately arrested and confined in jail since 5.4.2024. Criminal history of the applicant has been adequately explained and it is undertaken that the applicant is ready to abide by any restrictions/conditions imposed by the trial court and he would remain present before the trial court as and when his presence would be required and would not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance.

¶16

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and identically placed co-accused person, namely, Shriram @ Shriram Lodh has been granted bail by this Court, a case of bail is emerging in favour of the applicant. The bail application moved on behalf of the applicant is, thus, allowed.

¶17

Let the accused/applicant- Darbari involved in abovementioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to certain stringent following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court as to when his presence would be required and he shall not be accorded any adjournment when the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance and if in any extreme exigency, the applicant is not able to present himself before the trial court, he will instruct his counsel to do all which is necessary for

¶19

expeditious disposal of the case including the crossexamination of any witness present.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and would not be having any bearing on any proceedings which might have been initiated against the applicant under Sections 174-A and 229 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶26

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Muk

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Darbari v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darbari v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satendra @ Satyendra Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Veerpaal vs State of U.P. Thru .Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Shubham Singh @ Kirtivardhan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sachin Kumar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Shivam Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow