Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Satish And Others vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|27 July, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15770 of 2021 Applicant :- Satish And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.239 of 2021, under Sections 308 and 504 IPC, Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident took place on 19.02.2021 whereas the impugned first information report has been on 20.02.2021 i.e. after lapse of one day and no proper explanation has been given regarding delay in lodging the FIR. He further submits that the injured Rahul is a drinker and he himself fell down in drunken position in drainage as a result of which he received head injury. Only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons. The applicants are having no previous criminal history. The applicants are in jail since 21.02.2021.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicants-Satish, Deepashu and Govind, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.
(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicants 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 them in accordance with law.
(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicants.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Ajeet
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Satish And Others vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
27 July, 2021
Judges
  • Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Advocates
  • Akhil Kumar Shukla