Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11844 of 2019 Applicant :- Devo @ Devo Datt Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Shukla,Rohit Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Rohit Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Arjun with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 462 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Surir, District-Mathura, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report has been lodged by Girish i.e. the brother of the victim, Shiv Ram on 3rd December, 2018 alleging therein that 5-6 months before, a quarrel had taken place between the victim and the applicant along with others in which the people of his village settled their dispute between them, but since the applicant was a powerful man, he and his companions were not satisfied with the said settlement. Two months before, the applicant and one Raju threatened the victim that they would kill him for which the father of the victim had made an application before the Police Chauki. On 2nd December, 2018, at 7:30 p.m. when the victim was coming to home after watering the farm, then the applicant with country-made pistol, Raju and Neeru with licence guns and Dharamveer with lathi surrounded the victim and they pushed him due to which he fell down and the applicant fired upon him by country made pistol due to which he sustained gun shot injuries. On hearing the screaming and shouting of the victim, they ran away threatening to kill him. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that though the specific role of firing upon the victim has been assigned to the applicant due to which he sustained gun shot injuries on his left arm, but from the medical examination report of the victim, the injuries sustained by him are simple in nature and also not on vital part of his body. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that in G.D.Entry/Parcha No. 2nd dated 6th December, 2018 it has been mentioned that during the course of investigation when the Investigating Officer reached the place of incident, one Rammo and two other farmers i.e. independent witnesses have stated that the present first information report has been lodged falsely. As per the prosecution version also, both sides i.e. informant and applicant are inimical to each other. Because of this reason also, the applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. 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. The applicant is in jail since 3rd January, 2019.
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 :- 26.4.2019 Sushil/-