Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11010 of 2016 Applicant :- Alok @ Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Sahai,Swati Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ali Hasan,Ishtiyaq Ali,Prabha Shanker Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Mrs. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is not named in the FIR as the same was lodged against one Sudhakar Dixit and Dinkar Dixit on 16.12.2015 but the name of the applicant has come into light during the course of investigation after four days of the incident in the statement of the informant and in the statement of Prem Shankar Dixit recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C after six days. She submitted that the alleged eyewitness Shailesh Dixit statement was recorded before the trial Court as PW4 and he has not disclosed the complicity of the applicant in the present case. The applicant being the real nephew of co-accused Sudhakar Dixit has been roped in the present case. There was no recovery made from the possession of the applicant. It has been further submitted that out of 19 prosecution witnesses, 9 witnesses of fact have been examined by the trial Court and other witnesses are formal in nature and trial has not concluded yet and the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.01.2016. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. She further submitted that as the witnesses of fact have already been examined hence there are no chance of tempering the evidence. It was further pointed out that two bail applications was filed by Dinkar Dixit who died during the pendency of trial, twice the trial was expedited by co-ordinate Bench of this Court while rejecting his bail application once for one year and second time it was directed to be concluded within three months but the trial has not yet concluded.
Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the complaint and learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant complicity was disclosed by the eyewitness Shailesh Dixit statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the the applicant is said to have driving the vehicle in which the deceased was sitting along with other co-accused persons but he could not dispute the fact that when the statement of the alleged eyewitness Shailesh Dixit was recorded before the trial Court as PW4 from his deposition complicity of the applicant has not been found.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the sentence awarded to the appellant, we are of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let the applicant Alok @ Raju involved in Case Crime No. 869 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 364, 365, 201 IPC, Police Station Rampur, District Jaunpur, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties of (out of which one should a family member) to the satisfaction of the court concerned with 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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail 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 applicants are 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) It is made clear that if the aforesaid applicant is having passport, he shall surrender the same before the trial court concerned before his release and further he will not leave the country without the permission of this Court.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a further period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
(Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 31.8.2018 Shubhankar Thakur