Court No. - 21
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41350 of 2018 Applicant :- Satyadew Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accused- applicant, Satyadew Prasad, who is involved in Case Crime No. 99 of 2014, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC and 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Sikariganj, District Gorakhpur.
As per the FIR version, the complainant is the wife of the deceased and she lodged the report alleging that her husband is the only son of the his father namely, Ramdhani and Ramdhani has sufficient land property and due to this reason the son-in- law of Ramdhani, namely, Bhabhuti Prasad and his brothers Subhuti and Satyadev have always demanded the share in land property of Ramdhani and due to this dispute on 06.08.2014 at about 7:30 p.m. when Jokhan Prasad, the deceased was returning from completing labour work and reached near the village Ishrauli Pulia he was killed by fire arm.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that even though the applicant is named in the FIR but father of the deceased and also the father and mother of the complainant in their statements have submitted that applicant has no concern with the incident; that there is no eye witness account of the incident and the allegation is only against Bhibhuti, Sabhuti and Shravan Kumar and the role assigned to the applicant is of only catching hold the deceased; that the investigation officer after the investigation has submitted the charge sheet excluding the name of the applicant, only against Bhibhuti, Sabhuti and Shravan Kumar. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on the basis of the statements of PW-2 and PW-3, the complainant has moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the sessions court and the court concerned has summoned the applicant and co-accused Zalim. It is further submitted that the main accused Sabhuti and Bhibhuti have already been granted bail by the court below in the instant crime.
However, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but not disputed the fact that main accused Sbhuti and Bhibhuti have already been granted bail by the court below.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and going through the record, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let applicant, Satyadew Prasad, 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 with 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, if 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 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 29.10.2018 Imroz