Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13815 of 2019 Applicant :- Vishal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Lalji Maurya, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Vishal with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 1231 of 2018, under Sections 307, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Sardhana, District-Meerut, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that for the alleged incident dated 7th November, 2018, the first information report has been lodged by Bobby on 12th November, 2018 against his brother, namely, Vishal and his mother, namely, Monesh i.e. after five days from the date of incident for which no plausible explanation has been given. In the first information report, it has been alleged that on 7th November, 2918 at 10:00 a.m. when the first informant was going to worship the deities on his fields then on the way, both the accused intercepted him and started to abuse him using abusive language. When he objected, they became angry and when the first informant came to her uncle's house, they entered into the house with lathi, sticks and sharp edged weapon and the co-accused Monish caught the hands of first informant and Vishal assaulted the first informant with sharp edged weapon due to which he sustained injuries on his neck. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the entire story narrated in the first information report as well as in the statement of the first informant is false and concocted, as such incident has not taken place. Due to land dispute between the two brothers i.e. applicant and informant, they had a quarrel in which by co- incidence the informant sustained in juries on his neck. The medical examination of the injured has been taken in a private hospital and not in the Government Hospital. As such genuineness of the medical examination report is doubtful. If it is true, two incised wounds have been found on the body of the injured which has been reported to be made by sharp object. It is also argued that the injured has been advised for X-ray examination but no X-ray examination of the injured has been conducted (reference paragraph-4 of the supplementary affidavit filed today). It is, therefore, argued that the said injury has been caused in a quarrel being made between the family members. The same is not deliberate or intentional. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 12th November, 2018.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, learned A.G.A.could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to 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.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Sushil/-