Court No. - 6
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23796 of 2019 Applicant :- Bhola @ Bilal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tiwary(Senior Adv.),Ashwini Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.11 of 2019, under Section 302 IPC Police Station-Sardhana, District-Meerut is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the informant is the real brother of the deceased. The incident is said to have been taken place on 04.01.2019 in the night of which, the FIR was registered around 2 a.m. in the morning. The injured was carried to C.H.C., Sardhana by home guard. After two days of the incident in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Farman and Shehzad recorded on 07.01.2019, they projected themselves as eye witnesses of the incident and have attributed the role of causing injury by gun against the applicant. It is next contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no compatibility between gun shot and the injuries sustained by the deceased. The next contention is that the name of the applicant figured up after two days of the incident. The applicant is in jail since 11.01.2019, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.
Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view that there is no compatibility between gun shot and the injuries sustained by the injured and the name of the applicant figured up after two days of the incident, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant-Bhola @ Bilal, involved in case crime no.11 of 2019, under Section 302 IPC Police Station-Sardhana, District-Meerut 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 WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
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 :- 10.6.2019 Sumit S