JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II, J. This is second application for bail. The earlier application for bail is said to have been rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.V.S.Rathore and after being released it has come up before this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for accused-applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and gone through entire record. 3. Applicant Suraj Verma @ Sant Bahadur Verma is involved in case crime no. 138 /2013, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, police station Tarun, District Faizabad. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for accused-applicant that in gang-chart 4 cases have been shown against the accused-applicant in which he is on bail and copies of bail orders have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It has been further contended that there are other cases in which too he is on bail and copies of bail orders have been annexed as Annexure Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It has been further contended that the accused-applicant is not involved in any anti social activities and he has been falsely implicated. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground of nature of cases. 6. Considering and keeping in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. 7. Let applicant Suraj Verma @ Sant Bahadur Verma accused of above-mentioned crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions: (i) the applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that his 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 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; and (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 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.