Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15951 of 2018 Applicant :- Dinesh Pratap Singh @ Dinesh Pasi @ Lala Saroj Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Chandra Srivastava,Shivajee Srivastava,Udai Karan Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Sahai, the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No.412 of 2017, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Soraon, District- Allahabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
For the purposes of evaluating the prayer for bail, the Court bears in mind that the prosecution rests solely on the statement of one Shakuntala Maurya who, it is submitted, is an interested party and has a grudge against the applicant. It is alleged that Shakuntala Maurya is alleged to have made a statement before the investigating authorities of the applicant having told her that in a drunken state he had committed the crime in question. Apart from this singular statement of Shakuntala Maurya, no other evidence has been collated evidencing the complicity of the applicant. It is also relevant to note that Shakuntala Maurya had also alleged a commission of offence under Section 376 I.P.C. against the applicant in which the applicant has already been bailed out. The attention of the Court in this respect is invited to the order passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.29103 of 2018. The Court is further apprised that although a chargesheet was submitted on 21 January 2018, no further progress has been made in the trial till date. The applicant is stated to be an Assistant Teacher and has no other criminal history. The Court further bears in mind that he has remained in jail since 09 November 2017. It has next been submitted that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions noticed above, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let the applicant Dinesh Pratap Singh @ Dinesh Pasi @ Lala Saroj be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Vivek Kr.