Court No. - 59
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4214 of 2018 Appellant :- Mohd. Amir @ Bhutto Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Punit Khare, ,Ram Bihari Mishra, Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A., Vikas Upadhyay
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned counsel for the informant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed challenging the order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District Allahabad, in Bail Application No. 2675 of 2018 (Mohd. Amir @ Bhutto vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 1541 of 2017, under Sections 302, 120B I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
As per prosecution case, informant along with the deceased while returning was ambushed by two named accused persons, who caused firearm injury to the deceased; postmortem examination report shows five gunshot injury; applicant is not named in the F.I.R.; name of the appellant surfaced in the statement of Nabi Ahmad and Ismile, who claim to be eyewitness of the alleged incident.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated; informant and eyewitness Priti have not stated that appellant was present at the place of occurrence; C.D.R. record does not support the prosecution version; criminal antecedent has been duly explained; appellant is languishing in jail since 20.06.2018; there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and appellant undertakes that if he is enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial, therefore, this appeal may be allowed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the fact as argued by learned counsel for the appellant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance hence, appeal as also bail application filed before the court below are allowed, order dated 09.07.2018 is hereby set aside.
Let appellant, Mohd. Amir @ Bhutto, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
1. The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if 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;
2. The appellant 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;
3. In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail 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;
4. The appellant 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 Mukesh Kr.