The case is called out.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kuldeep Kumar Awasthi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.0582 of 2018, under Section 3/5/8 Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Police Station Mohamedi, District Lakhimpur Khiri.
The occasion of present bail application has arisen on rejection of bail plea of applicant by Second Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Khiri in the aforesaid case crime vide order dated 26.7.2019.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant submits that on the bare perusal of the F.I.R. made by the police, it becomes clear that the police on reliable source of information regarding commission of offence of cow slaughtering in house of one Chhottey, on his identification raided the house and found there four persons. Out of them two were fled away from the spot, however, two persons caught red handed, namely Chhottey and Shablu. Learned counsel for the bail applicant on the basis of the aforesaid fact submits that the present accused-applicant has not been identified by the police nor by the police raiding party.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant further submits that the name of the present bail applicant along with one another co-accused Jibrail came into confession of the co-accused chhottey who disclosed their names. Learned counsel further submits that the offences are triable by Magistrate and rest of the co-accused, those who were caught red handed namely Chhottey, Shablu and Jibrail have already been released on bail by co-ordinate benches of this Court vide orders dated 11.12.2018 and 2.8.2019.
Learned A.G.A protests the bail application and submits that the co-accused Chhottey who was caught red handed on the spot when asked hardly about other companions in the offence, he promptly told the name of co-accused Jibrail and Saanu as well as their involvement in the offence. Moreover, on the spot a slaughtered cow was being cut into pieces by them as their involvement in the commission of offence is established. He further submits that the accused is habitual of committing similar offences as there is criminal history of the applicant.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the bail applicant submits that the involvement of accused applicant in the like nature of the offence as shown in the criminal history by the State is not sufficient to hold the accused as habitual offender, therefore, at the stage of bail when the things are incriminating to be proved in trial and he is ready to face the trial and since purpose of grant of bail is only to ensure the presence of bail applicant, so on the ground of parity, the present bail applicant may also be released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The case against the accused is triable by Magistrate. Accused-applicant is languishing in jail since 4.7.2019. I find force in the submissions of learned counsel for the bail applicant. Therefore without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicant (Saanu) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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.
Order Date :- 27.8.2019 Gaurav/-