Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19818 of 2016 Applicant :- Santosh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swati Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Counter-affidavit on behalf of State-respondent has been filed today, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri V.K.S. Kushwaha for the complainant; the learned A.G.A. for the State; and perused the record.
This is a second bail application of the applicant in case crime No. 151 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 304 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, police station Karimuddinpur, District- Ghazipur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The first bail application No. 37948 of 2015 of the applicant was rejected by order dated 10.12.2015 by noticing the submission of the learned A.G.A. that during the course of investigation, the witness, namely, Surendra, had assigned specific role to the applicant of having assaulted the deceased.
The second bail application has been filed, inter alia, on the ground that during the course of trial the statement of witnesses of fact have been recorded and Surendra has assigned not specific but general role to the applicant and since general allegations are against several persons in respect of assault, preceded by altercation, on account of interruption of a marriage procession, the applicant, who has already suffered incarceration of nearly three years, keeping in mind that the deceased died after several days of receipt of injuries, is entitled to bail because it cannot be said that the accused had shared any common object or intention to cause such bodily injury which may, in ordinary course, result in death, more so, when he has no previous criminal history. It has been submitted that the applicant is in jail since 05.06.2015 and, in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Considering the nature of the allegations as also the submissions made and keeping in mind the period of under trial detention and there being no material suggesting the possibility that the applicant will misuse the liberty of bail, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant Santosh Yadav 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 not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) 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;
(iii) 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;
(iv) 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; and
(v) 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.
It is, however, provided that the trial court would endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Order Date :- 23.3.2018 Sunil Kr Tiwari