Court No. - 59
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23734 of 2018 Applicant :- Shekhar Bhadauria @ Chandrashekhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar,Anurag Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Dubey,Shailendra Kumar Tripathi,A0987
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant has filed counter affidavit which is taken on record.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Satyendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
As per the prosecution case, the deceased was subjected to gun shot injuries by five nominated persons including the applicant; fire arm injury is alleged to have been caused by three persons including the applicant; postmortem examination report supports the prosecution case of causing single gun shot injury on the body of the deceased; assault weapon was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant; eight eye-witness account have supported the prosecution case; incident is said to have occurred at 3 PM and the F.I.R. was lodged promptly at 3:45 PM.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the prosecution case may be accepted on face value; applicant had no option but to retaliate in self defence. As per the prosecution case, deceased is the aggressor and on the date of incident the deceased abused his mother; she informed the applicant about the incident on phone; deceased retaliated by firing the applicant; applicant received gun shot injury on the shoulder; applicant in self defence retaliated and immediately informed the police by dialling 100 which is recorded at 4:03 PM; deceased was a hardened criminal having 17 cases lodged against him including two cases each under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C.; residents feared the deceased of their life and property; as per the prosecution, terror of the deceased writ large over the village; there is contradiction in the statements of the witnesses; prosecution nominates five persons of which three persons caused injury by fire arm; witnesses have stated two persons including the applicant, thereafter, applicant has been named as the sole accused; applicant is a practising doctor having no criminal antecedents; applicant is languishing in jail since 9.1.2018. If he released on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail submitting that the injury caused to the applicant is implanted; all the eight eye- witness account have taken the name of the applicant; it is not in public interest to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage considering that the applicant was a notorious element.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant-Shekhar Bhadauria @ Chandrashekhar involved in Case Crime No. 780 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District manipuri be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond each in 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 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 :- 29.8.2018/Saurabh