Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30024 of 2019 Applicant :- Pradeep @ Bhole Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.K. Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.K. Shahi, leanred counsel for the State and Sri Jai Babu Kesharwani, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the informant/complainant by filing his vakalatnama in Court today which is taken on record.
Perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Pradeep @ Bhole with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 54 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149,307, 286, 506, 392 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-
Sarai Akil, District-Kaushambi, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report has been lodged on 17th February, 2019 by Rajendra Prasad Dwviedi i.e. the brother of the injured, namely, Manish Kumar @ Manoj Dwivedi against 11 persons including the present applicant and the Village Panchayat Officer and Junior Engineer (not named) alleging therein that as on the complaint made by the informant regarding non-completion of development work of the Primary School, Sursaini, the inspection team visited the place where the development work was to be done, on 16th February, 2019 while the injured was waiting the inspection team, at 01:20 p.m. the injured was called through telephone by Village Panchayat Officer, Sursaini to come to Primary School, Sursaini as soon as he reached there, the applicant as well as six others caught hold of the injured and the co-accused Gyanendra Kumar @ Commission, Bajrangi and Sudhir fired upon the injured by country-made pistols due to which he sustained fire arm injuries. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the prosecution version, the role of the applicant is only of catching hold of the injured, whereas the role of causing fire-arm injuries to the injured has been assigned to the co-accused Gyanendra Kumar @ Commission, Bajrangi and Sudhir, therefore, the case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable.
Apart from the above, it has further been argued by the leaned counsel for the applicant that the co-accused, namely, Pintu @ Vijay Kumar Mishra, who has also been assigned the role of catching hold of the injured, has already been enlarged on bail by this Bench vide order dated 2nd July, 2019. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused. As such the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 6th June, 2019.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to 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.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Sushil/-