Court No. - 59
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31623 of 2018
Applicant :- Nihal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant involved in Case Crime No. 169 of 2018, under Sections 304, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur.
As per prosecution case, it is urged that members of Rajpoot community assaulted the brother of District President Bheem Army; four persons were named in the F.I.R.; applicant has not been named in the F.I.R.; during investigation, statement of the complainant, who is mother of the deceased, stated that she was informed that co- accused Praveen Kumar alias Manda while handling the country-made-pistol of the applicant accidentally fired which hit the deceased; on the arrest of co-accused Praveen Kumar, assault weapon was recovered from the house of the applicant.
It is urged that apart from the statement of first informant, there is no evidence against the applicant; role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Praveen Kumar alias Manda and on his pointing, assault weapon was recovered from the house of the applicant; it is a case of accident; there is no intention to kill the deceased; applicant is languishing in jail since 26.05.2018, having no criminal antecedent and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
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-Nihal be released on bail in the above case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to following additional 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 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.
However, It is made clear that in case the applicant indulges in intimidating or threatening any witness, the State or Prosecutor would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Mukesh Kr.