Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Hanuman Prasad Saroj vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 November, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45565 of 2018 Applicant :- Hanuman Prasad Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Babu Mishra,Ravindra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Hanuman Prasad Saroj, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 67 of 2018 under Sections 306, 308, 323 IPC, P.S. Kaushambi, District Kaushambi during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that Mamta Saroj and Raj Kumar were in love with each other. On the fateful day i.e. on 29.7.2018, Mamta Saroj attempted to commit suicide by jumping in well and accordingly sustained injuries. The girl Mamta Saroj was retrieved from the well but she died. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 29.7.2018 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 067 of 2018 under Sections 306, 308, 323 IPC, P.S. Kaushambi, District Kaushambi. In the aforesaid F.I.R., two persons namely, Cheddan Saroj and Hanuman Prasad Saroj the father and uncle of the girl Mamta Saroj were nominated as the named accused. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, submitted a charge-sheet dated 24.10.2018 against both the named accused. What has happened subsequent thereto has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application, nor the same has been disclosed at the time of hearing of the present bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R has been registered under sections 306, 308, 323 IPC. Though the post-mortem of the body of the deceased records that the deceased has sustained certain ante-mortem injuries, but there is no recital in the F.I.R. that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were inflicted by the present applicant. It is next submitted that the proof of charge under section 306 IPC is subject to trial evidence. Up to this stage, there is no evidence to show that the applicant has aided, conspired or instigated in the commission of the alleged crime. As such, there is no abettment on the part of the present applicant. The applicant is in jail since 31.7.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. But he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant and without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Hanuman Prasad Saroj, 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 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 IPC.
(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 IPC.
(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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR 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 :- 29.11.2018 Arshad
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Hanuman Prasad Saroj vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
29 November, 2018
Judges
  • Rajeev Misra
Advocates
  • Dhirendra Babu Mishra Ravindra Kumar Mishra