Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35883 of 2016 Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jyoti Bhushan,Faizur Rahman,Pankaj Kumar Rai,Ram Surat Saroj,Shambhavi Nandan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Pathak, learned counsel for applicant, Sri P.S. Yadav, the learned A.G.A. and perused the records.
Applicant - Narendra Kumar seeks bail in Case Crime No.168 of 2016, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Bardah, District - Azamgarh.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the application given by the informant on 6.6.2016 to the police that his son Arun, who had gone to attend a marriage, his body was recovered behind his house at a distance in a madhai, inquest was conducted on the same day, in the presence of named witnesses including Molai, who was silent as to the identity of he assailants, name of Molai was also missing in the F.I.R, which came to be lodged on 10.6.2016 (after 4 days of the occurrence), whereas in his statement, Molai was nominating the name of the applicant as an assailant, which gives a dent to the prosecution story coupled with the fact that co-accused Santosh Kumar has already been bailed out by this Court on 20.11.2017, applicant claims to have no previous criminal history, is languishing in jail since 11.6.2016, trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future, he undertakes not to misuse the liberty, he be enlarged on bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant- Narendra Kumar involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 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 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.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 N.S.Rathour