Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20133 of 2018 Applicant :- Arvind Pandit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Kuntal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 581 of 2014, under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Bannadevi, District Aligarh is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR of the incident was lodged under Section 376, 504 and 506 IPC. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet under Section 376D, 328, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act on 24.09.2014. Thereafter applicant approached before this Court by means of Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 30372 of 2015. The applicant was admitted on bail under Section 376D, 328, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act . It is submitted by the counsel that due to inadvertance Section 406 IPC was also there but could not be incorporated while drafting, learned Sessions Judge, Court No.2 on 27.04.2018 has rejected the bail application under Section 406 IPC and thus the present bail application. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 27.07.2014 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
In view of the above, let the applicant- Arvind Pandit be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 581 of 2014, under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Bannadevi, District Aligarh with the following conditions:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, 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 THE HIM/HER 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.
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.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Abhishek Sri.