1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in FIR No.09 of 2020, under Sections 395, 120B IPC, Police Station Ramsanehighat, Barabanki.
3. This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.02.2020.
4. Mr.Indrajeet Shukla, learned counsel for the accused-applicants submits the police itself has absolved the accused-applicants of the offence under Section 302 IPC. He has been implicated only under Sections 395 and 120B IPC and charge-sheet has been submitted against them only under the aforesaid provisions of Indian Penal Code. Offence of 395 IPC was alleged to have been committed 15 days back from the date when Sohan Lal @Sonu Sharma and Ram Mehar Sharma were killed. The accused-applicants have been in jail since 12.01.2020. No recovery has been effected from their possession. They have been implicated for the offences under Section 395 IPC with the aid of Section 120B IPC.
5. Mr. Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. has handed over the supplementary counter affidavit which is taken on record. He has submitted that the charge-sheet against the accused-applicants has been filed only under Section 395/120B IPC.
Mr. Farooq Ayub, learned counsel for the complainant has not disputed the aforesaid fact inasmuch as submissions of the counsel for the accused-applicants is based on documentary evidence which is clear from the supplementary affidavit filed by the State.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
7. Let applicants Jaani @ Karamveer Singh and Sahil be released on bail in the aforesaid case on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :-
(i) 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.
(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse 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.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021 prateek