Court No. - 38
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17162 of 2019 Applicant :- Vinod Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra,Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant has supplied a copy of bail order of co-accused Daya who was enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17030 of 2019, is taken on record.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant involved in Case Crime No. 69 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 352, 427, 436, 452, 504, 506 IPC and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kandawa, District Chandauli. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case because of a counter blast F.I.R. lodged by Rubi, the daughter of co-accused Basawan as case crime no. 68/2018, under Sections 354(a), IPC., 3(i)(d), 3(i)(dha) SC/ST Act and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Kandawa, District Chandauli. No injury has been caused to the informant. It has further been submitted that co-accused Daya has already been enlarged on bail, as such, he is also entitled to be released on bail. Applicant has no reported criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 3.4.2019.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail contending that the F.I.R. was lodged against 53 persons wherein 23 were named including the applicant, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.
Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, material available on record regarding role of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed.
Let the applicant-Vinod involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (one should be of his family members/nearest relatives) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witness.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(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 (iv) argument/judgement.
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 :- 26.4.2019 Saurabh