Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Bhanu Pratap @ Collector Yadav vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|28 November, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44809 of 2018 Applicant :- Bhanu Pratap @ Collector Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Yadav,Ritesh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant involved in Case Crime No. 108 of 2018, under Sections 302, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Bara, District Allahabad.
As per prosecution, the deceased was subjected to assault by three unknown persons, resultantly, he succumbed to his injury. The injured witness Sandeep Kumar Yadav, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., only made suspicion of the involvement of co-accused Hansraj, who is named in the FIR but the present applicant has even not been named therein though there are witnesses of last seen. No recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present applicant- Bhanu Pratap alias Collector Yadav has not been even named in the FIR whereas co- accused Hansraj, named in the FIR, has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 27.08.2018 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32546 of 2018, therefore, the case of the applicant stands on better footing than that of the co-accused Hansraj , therefore, he is also entitled for the same liberty as of the aforesaid co-accused. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 22.09.2018. It is further urged that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Bhanu Pratap alias Collector Yadav, involved in Case Crime No.
108 of 2018, under Sections 302, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Bara, District Allahabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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 COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(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., 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, 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 HIM 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 bail so granted by this court.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 shailesh
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Bhanu Pratap @ Collector Yadav vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
28 November, 2018
Judges
  • Rahul Chaturvedi
Advocates
  • Narendra Kumar Yadav Ritesh Srivastava