Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1196 (ALL)

Hari @ Hari Shankar v. State of U. P.

2015-05-13

RANJANA PANDYA

body2015
JUDGMENT Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that a G.D. was lodged against the death of the deceased, namely, Guddu @ Rozan Ali. It has been further contended that the applicant has not been named in the F.I.R. His name crept into picture during the statement of Kodai, who alleged that he had last seen the accused along with the deceased and after 6-7 days when the deadbody of Guddu @ Rozan was found. He has full confidence that Hari Shanker and his companions had murdered Rozan. It has further been contended that co-accused Noor Ali @ Pachuaahe and Mod. Rafiq have been granted bail. Hence, the applicant is entitled to bail. 3. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that last seen evidence is against the applicant, hence, he is not entitled to bail. 4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, I think the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 5. Let the applicant Hari @ Hari Shanker involved in Case Crime No.600 of 2014 under Section 302 /201 I.P.C., Police Station Nautanawa, District Maharajganj be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 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. (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.