Court No. - 59
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31612 of 2018
Applicant :- Bheem Rajbhar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mainuddin Ahamad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants who are involved in Case Crime No. 143 of 2018, under Sections 304, 308, 323, 352, 504 IPC, P.S. Ghosi, District Mau.
As per prosecution case, role of causing injury by lathi & danda has been assigned to four accused persons including the applicants; initially N.C.R. was lodged, thereafter, additional section was added on the death of the deceased.
It is urged that general role of causing injury by lathi & danda has been assigned to all the accused persons; postmortem examination report shows two injury (one fatal injury above right eyebrow and another bruise on left eye); author of the injury is not known; in the statement under S. 161 Cr.P.C., it is stated that apart from the named accused persons, some persons threw stone from the roof, which caused injury to the deceased; applicants are languishing in jail since 14.05.2018, having no criminal antecedent and in case they are enlarged on bail, they 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 applicants.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail.
Let the applicants-Bheem Rajbhar and Mulayam be released on bail in the above case on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicants 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 applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicants 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 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 them in accordance with law.
However, It is made clear that in case the applicants indulge in intimidating or threatening any witness, the State or Prosecutor would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Mukesh Kr.