Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1414 of 2018 Applicant :- Santosh Bhadauriya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sikandar B. Kochar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A/S1834,Aditya Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Sikandar B. Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri SK Anwar, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA.
Contention raised at the Bar is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant claims parity with the co- accused Vijay Singh and Rajesh, who have already been enlarged on bail in the instant case vide orders dated 15.02.2018 and 03.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 5543 of 2018 and 50819 of 2017 by different Benches of this Court.
This Court has perused the contents of the FIR wherein the role of fatal shot firing at the deceased Rinku, has been attributed to co-accused Sarvesh Kumar. Rest of the five accused persons are averred to be boarded on the Scorpio Jeep. The applicant has not played in overt act in the commission of crime except that he was accompanying the miscreants, no role has was assigned to him. It was lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 16.11.2017 having no criminal history.
Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is a previous convict and he was released on probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act vide order dated 18.11.2016 under sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. Besides this, there are number of cases owing credit of the applicant, therefore, the applicant is not liable to be granted bail.
In rebuttal learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has explained the criminal history of the applicant in the affidavit, which are paragraps 25 to 26 to the affidavit accompanying the petition.
The criminal history, as mentioned above, has satisfactorily been explained by the learned counsel for the applicant. The prime co-accused in the instant case is co-accused Sarvesh Kumar, therefore, the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from co- accused Sarvesh Kumar.
Keeping in view that the applicant has not placed any role in the commission of the crime except that he accompanied the miscreants, 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 Santosh Bhadauriya, involved in Case Crime No. 253 of 2017, under sections 147, 504 and 302 IPC, P.S. Chaubiya, District Etawah 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 :- 27.2.2018 shailesh