Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7302 of 2018 Applicant :- Kailash @ Babu @ Mamu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Tiwari,Sanjay Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 0344 of 2017, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, P.S. Chandausi, District Sambhal is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is three days delayed FIR which was registered by one Satish against Bhagwan Das and Triloki and one unknown person with the allegation that Bhagwan Das (husband) and Triloki (dewar) who used to physically and mentally tortured the deceased. A information was shared by Chatrapal and Roop Kishore to informant that the named accused persons has taken away a gunny bag during intervening night of 4/5.06.2017 when these witness Chatrapal and Roop Kishore was examined after almost one month, they have for the first time disclose the name of the applicant Kailash @ Babu @ Mamu that he was named accused person was sitting in the rickshaw carrying the gunny bag. Except this there is no other evidence on record showing the involvement of the present applicant and commission of the crime. Besides above daughters of the deceased in their 161 Cr.P.C. statement has only stated that the applicant used to visit her residence. The post mortem report shows that there is ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. So far as the recovery is concerned it is at the pointing out that Bhagwan Das. The case of the present applicant is clearly distinguishable from Bhagwan Das and Triloki. Since the applicant is not named in the FIR and there is no over or covert act has been assigned to him in commission of the actual crime. It is contended that the if at all it is taken to be true, the offence would not travel beyond Section 201 IPC against applicant. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who has no criminal antecedent to his credit and is in jail since 08.06.2017 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
In view of the above, let the applicant- Kailash @ Babu @ Mamu be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 0344 of 2017, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, P.S. Chandausi, District Sambhalwith the following conditions:-
(i) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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 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 IPC.
(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS ARE 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.
(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 APPLICANTS.
However, it is made clear that any 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 a 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 :- 26.2.2018 Abhishek Sri.