Court No. - 22
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42821 of 2018 Applicant :- Dinesh Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Atmaram Nadiwal,Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma,Dinesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Counter affidavit filed today be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accused- applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 281 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 308, 323, 427, 455, 504, 506 I.P.C.
Police Station Farenda, District Maharajganj.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that civil litigation is pending inter se parties. Regarding an incident which took place on 24.6.2018, the applicant lodged an F.I.R. against the informant and his associates whereafter, being annoyed, the informant lodged present F.I.R. against the applicant cooking a false and fabricated story. At the time of alleged incident, though the applicant was admitted in the hospital even then he has been nominated as an accused in the present case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He is in jail since 16.7.2018 and if he is granted liberty, he will not misuse the same.
Sri Sunil Kumar Katiyar, learned A.G.A. has vehemently submitted that in the incident, three persons Umashankar, Bhanmati and Radhika have been seriously injured, as such, applicant may not be granted bail.
I have perused available records. I find that in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it has been asserted that three persons, namely, Umashankar, Bhanmati and Radhika received injuries during the occurrence but when learned A.G.A. was specifically confronted with the same, he could not locate the injuries of Bhanmati and Radhika. Neither the case diary has been produced nor injury report has been annexed with the counter affidavit and subsequently submitted that they had not received any injury. It is serious lapse on the part of learned A.G.A.
while making assertion before the Court as well as filing counter affidavit on record.
Issue notice to the concerned A.G.A., who has submitted the said counter affidavit before Court, to explain the conduct within 10 days as to why the matter should not be reported to their appointing authorities for necessary action.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Dinesh Chaudhary involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. He shall cooperate in the trial bonafidely without seeking adjournments.
3. He shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Copy of the order be supplied to the Government Advocate for information.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Ram Murti