Allowed

Gopal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2024BAIL/1919/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to an applicant charged with petty theft after hearing arguments that he was an absconder but had not received trial court process for six years. The court allowed release subject to a personal bond and two heavy sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed, applicant released on patient bond with two heavy sureties subject to specific conditions including attendance and cooperation in trial.

Gopal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16107

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1919 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Gopal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary.

¶7

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

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Gopal for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 522/2006, under Section 379/411 IPC, Police Station Dhaurahra, District Kheri, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case and earlier the applicant was released on bail in this case vide order dated 9.11.2006 by the trial court passed in Bail Application o. 2225/2006, however, after being released on bail, applicant did not receive any process of the trial court and it is in this regard the applicant could not appear before the trial court for a long time and ultimately he was arrested and is in jail since 11.1.2024.

¶10

It is further submitted that had any process of the trial court been served on the applicant he would have appeared before the trial court without delay and it is only on account of not getting knowledge of any coercive process the applicant could not appear before the trial court, however, the penal offences with which the applicant has been charged, are petty offences, triable by the Magistrate and the applicant undertakes that he will remain present before the trial court as and when his presence would be required and would not seek any adjournment on such dates when the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposes the prayer of bail

¶12

of the applicant on the ground that the applicant is an absconder.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the applicant is involved in a petty case of theft. He was released on regular bail by the trial court and for the last six years he was not attending the trial court. The defence of the applicant appears to be that that no coercive process of the trial court has ever been served on him. The order of the trial court dated 25.1.2024 whereby the plea of bail of the applicant has been denied would fortify the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as it has not been indicated in the order of the trial court dated 25.1.2024 as to whether any process issued by the trial court has even been served on the applicant. The applicant is in jail in this case since 11.1.2024. The case is with regard to the theft of a buffalo.

¶14

Thus for the reasons above, the facility of bail may be extended in favour of the applicant. The bail application moved on behalf of the applicant is thus allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Gopal involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking before the trial court that he will remain present before the trial court on each and every date of listing and if, in any exigency he is not in a position to appear before the trial court, he will instruct to his counsel engaged at the level of trial court to do what is necessary for expeditious disposal of the case. In the undertaking he will also state that in the event of presence of the prosecution witnesses he would not make any adjournment.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 22.2.2024 Muk

¶24

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

Gopal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home 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

Pankaj K Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Dharamveer Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Dept. of Home

Jaswant Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Another

Gopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Raj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another