Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9847 of 2018 Applicant :- Raju @ Rajua Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Pandey,Lalit Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhanu Prakash Verma
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant today, is taken on record.
Heard Sri SC Pandey and Sri Lalit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
Contention raised at the Bar is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name surfaced in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Dhruv S/o the deceased after a month and five days (annexed as SA-1 of the supplementary affidavit). Even if the aforesaid statement of the aforesaid witness is taken on its face value, the role assigned to the present applicant is only of catching hold. The role of assaulting the deceased has been attributed to co-accused Kallu alias Dharmendra. The case of the present applicant is clearly distinguishable from the case of the co- accused Kallu alias Dharmendra. Criminal history of one case has been attributed to the present applicant in which he has been acquitted, as per the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant at the Bar. The applicant is in jail since 11.01.2018.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, 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 Raju @ Rajua, involved in Case Crime No. 1236 of 2017, under section 302 IPC, P.S. Highway, District Mathura be released on bail 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 IPC.
(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 IPC.
(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.
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.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018/shailesh