Court No. - 59
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3924 of 2018 Appellant :- Sone Lal Saroj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajeet Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
As per office report dated 5.9.2018, notice upon the informant has been duly served.
Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent and perused the paper book.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed challenging the order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Jaunpur, in Bail Application No. 88 of 2018 (Sone Lal Saroj Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 127 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 302 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Meerganj, District Jaunpur, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
As per prosecution case, deceased, driver of the vehicle, was assaulted by five persons nominated in the F.I.R.; witnesses, in their statement under S. 161 Cr.P.C., have supported the prosecution version; postmortem examination report shows five injuries; cause of death is hemorrhage, shock and coma as a result of antemortem head injury; single head injury is reported.
It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that author of the assault is not known; general allegation has been made; there is no eyewitness of the alleged incident; appellant is languishing in jail since 15.06.2018 , having no criminal history; there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the appellant undertakes that if he is enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial, therefore, this appeal may be allowed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the fact as argued by learned counsel for the appellant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance hence, appeal as also bail application filed before the court below are allowed, order dated 9.6.2017 is hereby set aside.
Let appellant, Sone Lal Saroj, 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:
1. The appellant 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;
2. The appellant 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;
3. In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant 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.
4. The appellant 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 :- 13.9.2018 Mukesh Kr.