Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1474 (ALL)

Satya Bhan @ Nanhku v. State of U. P.

2015-06-01

RAMESH SINHA

body2015
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. Heard Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Tripathi, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of the injured, who subsequently died. The F.I.R. was lodged against co-accused Ajeet, who is the brother-in-law of the injured/deceased. The name of the applicant came into light in the statement of the informant recorded after 85 days of the incident, who stated that the applicant has made extra judicial confession before one Subedar confessing his guilt except the same there is no cogent evidence against the applicant to connect him with the present crime. So far as recovery of country made pistol on the pointing out of the applicant after 99 days of the incident is concerned, the same is absolutely false. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 14.1.2015. 3. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. 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 tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 4. Let the applicant Satya Bhan @ Nanhku involved in Case Crime No. 271 of 2014 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302/34 I.P.C., police station Kampil, District Farrukhabad 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 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. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Ajeet brother-in-law of the injured/deceased.