Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17627 of 2019 Applicant :- Abhishek @ Lala Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Devi Dayal Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Devi Dayal Kushwaha learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Abhishek @ Lala with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 149 of 2019, under Sections 326, 452, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Shahganj, District-Agra, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report has been lodged by Vijay Kumar father-in-law of the victim, namely, Rakesh on 15th March, 2019 alleging therein that on 14th March, 2019 at 09:39 p.m. (night), when the first informant was present in his house, suddenly the applicant entered into the house of the informant and started using abusive language against all the persons and when the victim objected not to use abusive language against them, the applicant assaulted the victim by Farsa due to which he sustained injury on his ear. However, in the statement of the injured recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is variation from version of the first information report. In the said statement it has been stated that on 14th March, 2019, the injured has come to the place of his brother' in-laws to attend the marriage ceremony of son of the first informant i.e. brother-in-law of his brother. On the same day at 09:30 p.m. (night), the applicant came into house of the first informant and started abusive language against the first informant and his family members. It has been further stated that as to why the applicant started using abusive language against the informant and his family members and as to why they were quarrelling is not known. He was relative of both i.e. applicant and informant, he had no concern with the quarrel between them and when he tried to stop the said quarrel, the applicant caught the injured from his back side and cut his ear by his teeth due to which he became unconscious. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the the applicant that as per the medical examination report of the injured, the injured was in drunken condition at the time of incident because smell of alcohol was present in the mouth of the injured. From the aforesaid it appears that injured was in drunken condition and when due to partition dispute, there was a quarrel between the applicant and the first informant, by co-incidence injuries have been caused to the injured. It is also argued that the weapon from which the said injuries have been caused to the injured is not clear because in the first information report it has been alleged that the said injury has been caused by Farsa, whereas in the statement of the victim it has been stated that said injury has been caused by teeth of the applicant. The injury sustained by the injured is not on vital part of his body. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 15th March, 2019.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(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.
(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.
(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.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) 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.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Sushil/-