Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2094 of 2018 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru Sp Cbi/Sciii New Delh Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Tripathi,Mandvi Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Gyan Prakash,Amit Misra,Nazrul Islam Jafri
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Mandvi Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the record.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that as per the order sheet of the trial it is apparent that there are total 79 witnesses and till date only the statement of informant (P.W.1) and the doctor (P.W.2) who has conducted the postmortem of the deceased have been recorded. It has been next argued that after two years of the incident from the house of the applicant only two number plates were recovered and there is no role assigned to the applicant for causing any injuries to the deceased as the same has been assigned to co-accused Ashok Jadaun who is already confined in jail and the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused of the present case. There is no cogent evidence against the applicant to connect him with the present crime. The applicant is in jail since 2.6.2017.
Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant- Manoj Kumar involved in R.C. No.03 (S)/ 2016 arising out of S.T. No. 645 of 2017, under Sections 120-B read with Section 302, 307, 398, 201 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act at P.S. C.B.I. / S.C.III/ New Delhi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.one lac with two sureties (one should be of his family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with 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.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within the period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before the trial court, if there is no legal impediment.
The applicant is directed to produce the certified copy of this order before the trial court for it's compliance.
The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Ashok Jadaun who caused injury to the deceased.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Neeraj