Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1441 (ALL)

Chand Babu @ Chandu @ Shahid v. State of U. P.

2015-05-29

RAMESH SINHA

body2015
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. Counter affidavit has been filed by State is taken on record. 2. Affidavit of compliance has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Sant Ravi Das Nagar (Bhadohi) which is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri R.K. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicnat has not been assigned any role of causing injury to the deceased as the same has been assigned to co-accused Pappu @ Arshad. From perusal of affidavit filed by S.P., Sant Ravi Das Nagar (Bhadohi) and counter affifdavit by which there appears no criminal history against the applicnt except 25 Arms Act. The applicant is in jail since 15.12.2014. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. 6. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. 7. Let the applicant Chand Babu @ Chandu @ Shahid involved in Case Crime No. 467 of 2009, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC, P.S.-Suriyawan, District Sant Ravi Das Nagar (Bhadohi) be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice: - (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. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Pappu @ Arshad.