Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44760 of 2018 Applicant :- Lala Alias Nitin Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Ram Bahadur 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.725 of 2018, under Sections 147/148/149/307/302/120-B, 34 IPC P.S.-Malpura, District- Agra is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The next contention is that other co-accused persons namely Santosh Yadav, Jitendra@Jeete and Vipin Yadav have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on different occasions, copies of the bail orders have been produced for perusal. In this continuation, parity has also been claimed by saying that the case of the applicant stands on the similar footing. There is a long criminal history of six cases of the applicant which has been duly explained in paragraph nos.16 and 17 of the bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 07.07.2018, is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and seeing the fact that the co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
In view of the above, let the applicant-Lala Alias Nitin Yadav be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no.725 of 2018, under Sections 147/148/149/307/302/120-B, 34 IPC P.S.- Malpura, District-Agra with the following conditions :-
(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.P.C., 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 IPC.
(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.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 THE 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 wilful 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 :- 27.11.2018 Sumit S