Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23222 of 2019 Applicant :- Arjun Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Singh,Sumitra Singh
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
List revised.
Even in the revised call, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party is not present.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accused- applicant, Arjun who is involved in Case Crime No. 219 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 304 I.P.C., P.S.
Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged on 24.03.2019 (after three days of incident) against five accused persons, namely Om Prakash, wife of Om Prakash, Arjun, Anita and Deepak alleging that on 21.03.2019 they assaulted Dhirendra Kumar with lathi-danda and bricks, he received three injuries, one on head, resultantly died.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there are general allegations against all accused persons. It is not clear from the prosecution case, who is the author of head injury due to which he died. It is further submitted that co- accused Om Prakash has already been granted bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.05.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22690 of 2019. The applicant has no previous criminal history which has been explained in para-15 of the bail application, he is not likely to abscond. The applicant is in jail since 05.04.2019.
Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State-respondent vehemently opposed the bail application but not contradicted the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and going through the record, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let applicant, Arjun, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount 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, if 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 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 AKT