Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28784 of 2017 Applicant :- Zahid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivasta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The applicant is involved in Case Crime No. 224 of 2004, under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Act, Police Station- Bakhira, District- Basti (Sant Kabir Nagar).
The allegation is that the applicant has absconded from the proceedings of the trial since 15th September, 2005 and it is after the non-bailable warrants were issued repeatedly, he came to be arrested on 17th May, 2017 and was produced before the Court and since then he is continuously in jail. The contention raised on behalf of the applicant is that earlier he was released from jail under the order of the Court dated 23rd September, 2004 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16030 of 2004 and one of the conditions was that he shall appear on each and every dates fixed by the trial court, however, when chargesheet in the case was prepared on 25th March, 2004 and it was placed before the court and the court took cognizance on 20th December, 2004 and on that date summons were directed to be issued to the accused yet no summons were ever served upon the applicant. From the perusal of the order sheet it transpires that in between the date fixed 3rd March, 2005 and 15th September, 2005, there is nothing on record showing the service of the summons upon the accused and, therefore, it is assumable that there was no occasion for the applicant to comply with the third condition contained in the bail order as he had no notice about the trial which was going on against him.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also from the perusal of the order sheet, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Zahid involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
However, applicant has been directed to be enlarged on bail with condition that he shall appear before court concerned as and when required and shall not avoid personal appearance, failing which, the court below will be at liberty to cancel the bail.
It is also directed that identity status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be strictly verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Atmesh