Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30027 of 2019 Applicant :- Bablu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Raj Singh,Brij Gopal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mohd. Shoaib Khan, learned A.G.A. learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Bablu with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.
228 of 2017, under Sections 307 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Ajeetmal, District-Auraiya, during the pendency of the trial.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report has been lodged by Vijay Singh against three named accused persons including the applicant alleging therein that on 9th May, 2017 at 08:30 p.m. all the accused persons, having illegal weapons, in front of the house of one Rajkumar Dohare, due to political rivalry, started abusing his maternal uncle, namely, Prem Chand, his brother, namely, Gajraj Singh and his maternal aunt, namely, Kushama Devi, when they objected not to do the same, all the accused persons fired upon them by their illegal fire arms due to which they sustained injuries. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the injured Prem Chand has stated that the co-accused Kalu @ Umesh fired upon him due to which he sustained injuries on his chest, the other co-accused Dheer Singh fired upon Kushama Devi due to which she sustained injuries on her right cheek, where as the applicant fired upon Gajraj due to which he sustained injuries on his neck. In the first information report, general role of causing fire arm injuries to the injured has been assigned to all the accused persons, whereas in the statement of the injured Prem Chand, specific role of causing injuries to the injured has been assigned. Though the specific role of causing fire arm injuries to the injured Gajraj has been assigned to the applicant, but as per the medical examination report, the fire arm injuries sustained by the injured Gajraj are simple in nature and not dangerous to his life. Apart from the above, it has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the co-accused, namely, Kalu @ Umesh and Dheer Singh, who have been assigned specific role of causing injuries to the injured Prem Chand and Kushama Devi respectively, have already been enlarged on bail by the another Benches of this Court vide order dated 3rd April, 2018 and 20th March, 2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4670 of 2018 and 4593 of 2018 respectively. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid two co-accused. As such the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also pressed the issue of period of detention of the applicant i.e. 6th July, 2017, who has undergone more than two years of incarceration. He, therefore, submits that considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 no useful purpose would be served in keeping the applicant behind the bars.
The applicant has five criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one but the same have satisfactorily been explained in paragraph-17 of the affidavit accompanying the present bail application. 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.
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 :- 26.7.2019 Sushil/-