Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16060 of 2019 Applicant :- Keshav Sharma @ Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharmendra Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Krishna Dutt Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned A.G.A. and Mr. Dharmendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant.
Perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Keshav Sharma @ Rahul with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 162 of 2019, under Sections 115 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Civil Line, District-Moradabad, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegations made in the first informant report, the first informant, namely, Manoj Kumar Ahuja is one of the trustee of the P.M.S. Public School, Civil Lines, Moradabad and earlier when Hariom Agarwal, the co-accused was trustee, he had illegally appointed his wife, namely, Manju Agarwal as Principal of the said institution and both of them had embezzled the money of the institution against which the first informant made complaint against them due to which he was bound to resign from the post of trustee. It was against this grudge that he hired the applicant along with two others, namely, Umesh Bhatt and Sharad Rastogi @ Mamu to kill the first informant. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that only on the basis of telephonic conversation with the co-accused, namely, Hariom Agarwal, present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. In the telephonic conversation between the applicant and Hariom Agarwal, nothing has been found which goes to show that he was hired by Hariom Agarwal for killing the first informant. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and only is a friend of co-accused Hariom Agarwal and as the first informant and Hariom Agarwal were inimical to each other, the present applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant has criminal history of one case except the present one which has satisfactorily been explained in paragraph-10 of the supplementary affidavit filed earlier. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 26th March, 2019.
Per contra learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the informant could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to 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.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Sushil/-