Court No. - 3
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40069 of 2018 Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Mohan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Heard Sri Surendra Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.K. Sisodia, learned AGA for the State.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Mukesh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 58 of 2018, under Section 302 I.P.C registered at Police Station Mishrauliya, District Siddharth Nagar.
According to the prosecution case, deceased Lavkush was brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of the applicant. Wife of deceased i.e. sister of applicant, namely, Pooja was having illicit relation with her brother-in-law (Bahnoi). The said relation was not liked by Lavkush. It is alleged that on 7.5.2018 deceased was killed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no eye- witness account of the incident and the applicant has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion. He submits that initially the FIR under Section 306 was lodged later, which was converted into Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel further submits that similarly placed co-accused persons, namely, Shailendra and Sunil have already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 39026 of 2018 (Shailendra Vs. State of U.P.) and 39027 of 2018 (Sunil Vs. State) respectively vide order dated 11.10.2018.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail. He further does not dispute that the case of the applicant is identical to that of those who have been granted bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, maintaining the parity, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant Mukesh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-a I.P.C.
(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., 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-a I.P.C.
(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 him 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 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 :- 27.10.2018 AK Pandey