Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43601 of 2019 Applicant :- Ishu Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in connection with Crime No.219 of 2019 under Sections 147, 302, 201, 394, 411, 120-B of IPC, Police Station Kankarkhera, District Meerut.
As per prosecution case, on 23.3.2019, one burnt dead body was found which was later identified to be that of deceased Monu.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no eyewitness account to the incident and the applicant has been made an accused solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. He submits that the evidence of last seen is not conclusive and merely on that basis, the applicant cannot be made an accused. He further submits that one watch allegedly belongs to the deceased was seized form the custody of the applicant, but the same has not been identified to be that of deceased. Lastly, it has been argued that the applicant is in jail since 26.3.2019; trial may take sometime for its final disposal and, therefore, he be released on bail.
On the other hand, though learned AGA opposes the bail application, but concedes that the alleged watch has not been identified by any one and but for the evidence of last seen, there is nothing against the applicant.
Considering the totality of the case, in particular the evidence collected by the prosecution and further considering the fact that trial may take sometime for its final disposal, without further commenting on merit, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Let applicant ISHU be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- 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 PC, 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 I.P.C.
(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 PC. 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/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 willful 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 :- 28.11.2019 RKK/-