Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30014 of 2019 Applicant :- Dharmveer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shivam Yadav,Akhilesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, 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- Dharmveer with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.539 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Jasrana, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that for the alleged incident dated 22nd October, 2017, the first information report has been lodged on 28th October, 2017 by Jai Singh i.e. the brother of the injured, namely, Gyan Singh against 7 named and three unnamed accused persons including the present applicant, i.e. after six days from the date of the alleged incident for which no plausible explanation has been given, which makes the prosecution case doubtful. In the first information report, it has been alleged that on the date of incident, when the injured was lying on a couch beneath the roof inside the house, at 11:30 p.m. (night) all the accused persons having illegal weapons entered into his house, on listening to their arrival, he woke up and asked loudly as to who has come, then Shiv Prasad instigated the co-accused Shyamveer to kill him as he should not be alive, on the said instigation, Shyamveer fired upon the injured by his illegal rifle due to which he sustained injuries on his chest, on hearing the screaming of the injured and sound of firing, Jai Singh, Prakash Devi and others reached on the spot, on seeing them they threatening to kill ran away. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the version of the first information report and the statement of the injured, specific role of causing fire arm injuries has been assigned to the co-accused Shaymveer, whereas specific role of instigation has been assigned to other co-accused Shiv Prasad. Other co-accused including the present applicant has been assigned the role of accompanying the aforesaid two co-accused only. Therefore, the case of the present applicant is clearly distinguishable from Shyamveer and Shiv Prasad. As per the medical examination report, the injuries sustained by the injured is not on the vital part of his body and the same are grievous in nature. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that after completing statutory investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted final report in the present case. On the protest being filed to the said final report, the court concerned has summoned the accused persons, from where they have been sent in Jail. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that for the incident dated 21st October, 2017, the co-accused, Shaymveer has lodged a first information report on 22nd October, 2017 against the four sons of injured and three unknown under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 323 and 506 I.P.C.
Therefore, as a counter blast to the same, the present first information report has been lodged against all the accused persons including the present applicant. 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 1st July, 2019.
Per contra learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant have 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. and the learned counsel for the complainant could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant. The learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out the criminal history of 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 :- 26.7.2019 Sushil/-