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

Chandan Rajbhar vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|27 October, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 60
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38680 of 2018 Applicant :- Chandan Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Nagendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is wholly innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of statement made by Markandey Rajbhar, who is an independent witness. It is next contended that the FIR was lodged against two named and two unknown persons. It is next contended that the police has shown recovery of one iron rod at the pointing out of the applicant from bush situated at the side of road. It is next contended that the said recovery of iron rod has been shown by the police after five months of the incident and no blood stained was found over the iron rod. It is next contended that there is one criminal history of the applicant being S.T. No. 332 of 2017, under sections 302, 120B, 504, 506 I.P.C. to which applicant was arrested and, thereafter, warrant was issued to this matter. It is next contended that co-accused, namely, Chhaya Devi, Manoj Rajbhar and Sumant Rajbhar having an identical role, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 10.10.2017, 19.2.2018 and 1.5.2018 in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application Nos. 38965 of 2017, 5924 of 2018 and 16234 of 2018 respectively. It is next contended that there are no chances of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail 3.1.2018 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant Chandan Rajbhar involved in case crime No. 298 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC, police station Rewtipur, District Ghazipur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:-
(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.
However, It is made clear that in case the applicant indulges in intimidating or threatening any witness, the State or Prosecutor would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 Arvind
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

Chandan Rajbhar vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
27 October, 2018
Judges
  • Neeraj Tiwari
Advocates
  • Ashok Kumar Mishra Nagendra Kumar Singh