Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12974 of 2019 Applicant :- Munnu Yadav Alias Abhimanyu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Sikaria Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Aditya Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Arvind Sikaria learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
The first bail application of the present applicant was rejected by this Court as not pressed, vide order dated 21.12.2018. Consequently, the applicant has filed this second bail application.
By means of this second application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 91 of 2018 under Sections 457, 380, 504, 411, 506 and 306 IPC, P.S.-Karanda, District- Ghazipur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the prosecution case as folded in the F.I.R., no offence under sections 467, 380, 306 I.P.C. can be said to be committed by the present applicant. The role of causing theft in the house by the first informant is specifically assigned to co-accused Siyakharwar and not the present applicant. He further submits that there is no aid, instigation or conspiracy on the part of the present applicant and therefore no offence under section 306 I.P.C. can be said to be committed by the present applicant. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State, the Court finds that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused Siyakharwar. Accordingly, the bail application of the present applicant is allowed.
Let the applicant Munnu Yadav alias Abhimanyu Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond 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 :- 31.5.2019 HSM