Allowed

Dayaram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024/8401/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by Dayaram accused under Sections 302 and 323 IPC. The applicant, having no prior criminal history and with co-accused granted bail, was ordered to be released on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties subject to standard conditions regarding presence at court and no misuse of bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Dayaram was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

Dayaram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53596

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8401 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dayaram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

1. Case has been taken up through video conferencing.

¶7

2 . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajdeep Singh learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.202 of 2023 under Sections 302,323 IPC, Police Station Bangarmau District Unnao.

¶9

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that FIR has been lodged by the wife of the deceased wherein she has mentioned that four accused assaulted the deceased with kicks and fists and general allegation of assault has levelled to all the four accused. It has been submitted that the statements of injured witnesses, namely, Dharmendra, Anup @ Anuj and Manish have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and they have stated the same facts, as narrated in the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-accused Chhotey Lal and Anil have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 31.10.203 and 15.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.12754 of 2023 and 13778 of 2023 respectively. He also submitted that the case of the applicant is at par with the aforesaid co-accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that P.W.-1, wife of the deceased, has been examined before the trial court and she stated in her cross-examination dated 30.04.2024 that all the four accused did not assault her husband and her husband was suffering from illness. She did not support the prosecution case.The applicant has no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 24.05.2023.

¶10

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that P.W.-1 , wife of the deceased in her cross-examination has not supported the prosecution case.

¶11

6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the argument that the co-accused Chhotey Lal and Anil having similar role has already granted bail by this Court; the argument that P.W.1 has not supported the prosecution case and the argument that general allegation of assault has been levelled against all the four accused persons, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

7. The bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶13

8. Let applicant, namely, Dayaram , be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(i) 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

(ii) 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.

¶16

(iii) 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.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)

¶18

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.

¶19

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.

¶20

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 dk/

¶22

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dayaram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayaram 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

Smt. Chandra Wati and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Amitabh Thakur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Tanveer Ahmad Alias Manu Sarkar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Pappu vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Dayaram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Smt. Neha @ Neha Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.S Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another