Court No. - 59
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2425 of 2018 Appellant :- Mukesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Vikram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Panchu Ram Maurya,Shashank Maurya
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Sri Mayank Maurya holding brief of Sri Pramod Kumar Maurya, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and 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 11.4.2018, passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, District Jaunpur, in Bail Application No.49 of 2018 (Mukesh Yadav vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.789 of 2017 under Sections 147, 149, 302 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S.- Maharajganj, District Jaunpur seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the co-accused Sanjay Yadav, Rohit Yadav and Rajesh Yadav have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this court; copy of bail orders are taken on record; role of the appellant is identical to the co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail; he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity; two fatal injuries were found on the body of the deceased; author of the fatal injury was not specified; appellant is not named in the F.I.R.; appellant has been falsely implicated; general role has been assigned to all the accused; there is no evidence against the appellant; appellant is in jail since 4.4.2018 having no criminal history. Therefore, this appeal may be allowed.
On behalf of the State these arguments have been repelled.
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 11.4.2018 is hereby set aside.
Let appellant, Mukesh Yadav, 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 :- 24.9.2018 Saurabh