Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24828 of 2021 Applicant :- Dilip Kumar @ Rudra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jeetendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Shukla
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Jeetendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned brief holder for the State, Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants - Dilip Kumar @ Rudra & Kaushal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 548 of 2020, under Sections 323, 325, 304, 504 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Bidhuna, District Auraiya.
Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the present case is a cross case. The cross FIR from the side of the applicant has been registered as case crime no. 549 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(R) and 3(1)(S) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Bidhuna, District - Auraiya. It is argued that from the side of the applicant, four persons have received injuries whereas from the side of the prosecution seven persons had received injuries out of which one person has died. It is argued that the prosecution is silent regarding injuries from the side of the applicant and as such, the genesis of the occurrence is being tried to suppress. It is further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in paragraph 21 of the affidavit and is in jail since 4.12.2020.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first information report from the side of the applicant is a belated report and the nature of the injuries would go to show that they could be self inflicted. It is also argued that even the version as brought forward would show that the place of occurrence is not the same and the lodging of the FIR is a manipulation just in order to create a false defence.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that there are injuries received by both the sides and there are FIRs by both the sides.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicants - Dilip Kumar @ Rudra & Kaushal, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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 I.P.C.
(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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 29.7.2021 nd