Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20179 of 2019 Applicant :- Dheeraj Shakya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Heard Sri Hari Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.L. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in connection with Crime No. 08 of 2012, under Sections 364 I.P.C, Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj.
As per prosecution case, on 02.08.2010, husband of the first informant namely Vinod Kumar Singh was taken by the applicant and thereafter, he did not return. 156(3) Cr.P.C. application was filed by the complainant on 20.10.2011 based on which offence under Section 364 of I.P.C. was registered against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits:
i) that there is delay in lodging the FIR and the said delay has not been explained by the prosecution.
ii) that the circumstantial evidence collected by the prosecution is not conclusive in nature and it appears that the complainant had suspected the applicant to be one of the accused.
iii) that the applicant is in jail since 17.02.2019 and the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, the applicant be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in particular the nature of evidence collected by the prosecution, without further commenting on merit, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Dheeraj Shakya be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) 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 shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under section 229-A I.P.C.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her 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/her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(iv) 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/her in accordance with law.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 SK