# Mohan Shyam v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 909 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-02-11 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohan-shyam-v-state-of-u-p-46842 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 173 - Insurance and Motor Vehicles - Compensation - The appeals have arisen out of the case of death in the same motor accident between a motorcycle and a tractor. The insurer while disputing the liability to pay had pleaded two distinct grounds against the two vehicles involved in the accident. Firstly, the insurance company contrary to the oral evidence stated that the unregistered trolley was used for a purpose other than agricultural and was thus a transport vehicle used for commercial purpose without a permit, hence there was violation of the insurance cover. (Para 9) Secondly, the motorcycle, which according to the insurer was duly insured but the same was not driven by a person possessed with a valid licence, therefore, violation of policy was pleaded to dispute the liability to pay. This ground was found favour with by the Tribunal. The legal representatives of the deceased could not prove that the driver of motorcycle possessed a valid driving licence and both the deceased being victims of their own violation, the dependents-claimants were held entitled to a lesser amount of compensation. (Para 10) For first ground, two conditions laid down by this Court are that at the time of accident, the tractor trolley must not be operated on a public road and that it is not used for commercial purpose. Attachment of a trailer to the tractor when used for commercial purpose on public road, would constitute a s ## Text 2 All. Mohan Shyam Vs. State of U.P. 909 India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 36. Let the applicant Mohan Shyam, involved in aforementioned case crime, 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, subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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 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 IPC. (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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC. (iv) THE APPLICANT 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 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. (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 APPLICANT. 37. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 38. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. 39. Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be 910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-: 1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored. 2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. 3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. 4. 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. 40. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. ---------- (2021)02ILR A910 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 11.02.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J. First Appeal From Order No. 230 of 2010 with First Appeal From Order No. 305 of 2010 Anish ...Appellant Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Sitapur & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma Counsel for the Respondents: Ashok Sahu, S.C. Gulati A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 173 - Insurance and Motor Vehicles - Compensation - The appeals have arisen out of the case of death in the same motor accident between a motorcycle and a tractor. The insurer while disputing the liability to pay had pleaded two distinct grounds against the two vehicles involved in the accident. Firstly, the insurance company contrary to the oral evidence stated that the unregistered trolley was used for a purpose other than agricultural and was thus a transport vehicle used for commercial purpose without a permit, hence there was violation of the insurance cover. (Para 9) Secondly, the motorcycle, which according to the insurer was duly insured but the same was not driven by a person possessed with a valid licence, therefore, violation of policy was pleaded to dispute the liability to pay. This ground was found favour with by the Tribunal. The legal representatives of the deceased could not prove that the driver of motorcycle possessed a valid driving licence and both the deceased being victims of their own violation, the dependents-claimants were held entitled to a lesser amount of compensation. (Para 10) For first ground, two conditions laid down by this Court are that at the time of accident, the tractor trolley must not be operated on a public road and that it is not used for commercial purpose. Attachment of a trailer to the tractor when used for commercial purpose on public road, would constitute a statutory defence within the ambit of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (Para 15, 16)