Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33447 of 2019 Applicant :- Phool Chand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application for bail has been filed by applicant- Phool Chand seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 1439 of 2017 under Sections 323, 452, 376, 511, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Shahganj, District-Jaunpur, during the pendency of the trial in the above mentioned case crime number.
3. Perused the record.
4. In respect of an incident which occurred on 26.10.2017, an F.I.R. dated 19.11.2017 was lodged by the victim Nirmala Devi herself, which was registered as Case Crime No. 1439 of 2017 under Sections 323, 452, 376, 511, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-
Shahganj, District-Jaunpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R., eight persons, namely, Phoolchand, Mewalal, Lalman, Rajesh, Indrajal, Pannalal, Pramod, Subhash, were nominated as the named accused.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the above mentioned case crime number. The applicant is in jail since 21.06.2019. It is then submitted that earlier an F.I.R. dated 28.10.2017 was lodged by Kusum i.e. wife of the present applicant, which was registered as Case Crime No. 1355 of 2017 under Sections 143, 376, 511, 392, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Shahganj, District-Jaunpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R., seven persons, namely, Satish, Jagdish, Arjun, Pratiram, Phirtoo, Ajay and Vijay were nominated as the named accused. It is then urged that the present criminal proceedings are a counter blast to the criminal proceedings initiate by the wife of the present applicant. It is lastly submitted that the prosecution story is nothing but a concocted story and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs the State Of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2018 (3) SCC 22, the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual and legal submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon consideration of the allegations made in the F.I.R. as well as the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
8. Let the applicant-Phool Chand 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.
9. 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 :- 26.8.2019 YK