Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49924 of 2021 Applicant :- Veeru @ Vijay Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gopal Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Dutt Tiwari
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0545 of 2021, under Sections 323, 307, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun at Orai.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the informant is real bhabhi of the applicant and wife of his elder brother i.e. co accused Shailendra. It is further contended that it is a family dispute and co accused Shailendra has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 12.10.2021. It is further contended that elder brother co accused Shailendra and the informant Smt Manju had some altercation as usually happens between a husband and wife. The informant called upon her brothers, Kapil, who along with his cousins namely Mohan (injured), Lullan and Ajay barged into the house of the applicant with the help of informant in the intervening night of 5.8.2021 and 6.8.2021 at about 12.30 -1.00 p.m., and started abusing and assaulting the family of the applicant and hearing the commotion the applicant came with his licensed gun and in the altercation it accidentally fired. It is further contended that the said incident himself reported by the applicant and his brother on 1090 from the mobile and when the police came the informant in order to save her brothers twisted the events, consequent upon which the present false FIR has been lodged. It is further submitted that as per injury report, injuries are simple in nature and the injured has been discharged from the hospital on the same day and the offence would not travel beyond Section 324 IPC, which is bailable. The applicant is in jail since 6.8.2021.
It is further contended that it is not expected from anyone to barge into the house of any person at the middle of the night and if some barges then a person has all the right to his self defence and in support of his argument, he relied upon the case of Sukumaran Vs State Represented by the Inspector of Police, reported in 2020 (1) SCC (Cri) 254.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail. He submits that the investigation is now complete and the charge sheet has been filed.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant- Veeru @ Vijay, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(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.
In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021/RavindraKSingh