Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.06.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.04.2021 without having any criminal history.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased died due to drinking spurious liquor in Village Dafarpur/Trilokpur. The applicants are not resident of Village Dafarpur/Trilokpur, instead they are resident of Gram Sabha Bara and applicant no. 1 was candidate for the post of gram pradhan in panchayat election from Gram Sabha Bara.
It is further submitted that even if the prosecution story is believed as it is, the applicants are the bonafide purchasers of the alleged recovery of liquor and nothing more. The alleged recovery made from the applicants is false. There is no independent public witness of the said recovery. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since applicant no. 1 was contesting election therefore due to election rivalry they have been falsely implicated at the instance of rival candidates as well as ruling M.L.A.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which they are in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicants on bail.
Let the applicants, Hridaya Kumar Tiwari and Sanjay Tiwari, involved in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 107/2021, under Sections 302/307/272/419/420/467/471/120B/34 IPC and Section 60/60A of Excise Act, Police Station - Gosaignaj, District - Ayodhya, be released on bail on their 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 applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.
(v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 25.8.2021 R.C.