Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27197 of 2016 Applicant :- Imran @ Munna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Tiwari,Ram Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Krishna Dutt Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. was lodged against Surendra and Amit by the brother of the deceased namely Rahul Kumar, who was eye witness of occurrence and though two persons have lost their life but subsequently the statement of one Mohan Chandra has been recorded who has stated about the complicity of some of the accused-persons including the applicant and one Farman. It is stated that the applicant and Farman have shot dead the deceased but Farman has granted bail by coordinate Bench vide order dated 09.01.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 505 of 2017 on the ground that the case of Farman is identical to that of co-accused Yusuf Ali, who has been granted bail by coordinate Bench passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11549 of 2016 on 18.04.2016. It is further submitted that the subsequent naming of the applicant by the other eye witness Mohan Chandra goes to show that he has introduced two new accused-persons i.e. applicant and Farman who have been responsible for the death of deceased appears to be an after thought, as the two accused namely Surendra and Amit who have been named in the F.I.R. by the informant have not been charge sheeted and they have been exonerated during investigation and the applicant and Farman has been charge sheeted hence the presence of eye witness Mohan Chandra at the place of occurrence appears to be doubtful. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 04.10.2016 and the trial has not been concluded.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant Imran @ Munna involved in Case Crime No. 529 of 2015, under Sections 302/411 I.P.C., Police Station Katghar, District Moradabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rupees one lac with two sureties (one should be of his family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.
(i) 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 7.9.2018 M/A.