Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Nanhe vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 March, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. IInd BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37456 of 2015 Applicant :- Nanhe Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Chaudhary,Neeraj Agarwal,Saiyad Iqbal Ahamad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.1.2015, hence this second bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant.
Heard Sri S.I. Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there were four accused persons involved in the present case including the applicant. They were given general role of assaulting the deceased. The three co-accused persons, namely, Ram Kunwar, Raju and Ravi have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 8.9.2014 and 8.10.2014 respectively passed in Crl Misc. Bail Application Nos. 29241 of 2014 and 32568 of 2014 copies of which have been annexed at pages-38 and 40 of the present bail application. He submits that the only distinguishable feature is that after 45 days of incident a blood stained patal is said to have been recovered at the pointing out of the applicant from an open place which is absolutely false. He submits that till date no prosecution witness has been examined though charges have been framed way back on 18.2.2015. He pointed out that the witnesses are not coming to give their evidence though bailable warrant has been issued against them. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 12.1.2014.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant Nanhe involved in Case Crime No. 694 of 2013 under Section 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station Tanda, District Rampur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties 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.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Shiraz
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Nanhe vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
30 March, 2018
Judges
  • Ramesh Sinha
Advocates
  • Ravindra Kumar Chaudhary Neeraj Agarwal Saiyad Iqbal Ahamad