Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1489 (ALL)

Mulla @ Mujeebur Rahman v. State of U. P.

2015-06-04

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 he is not named in the F.I.R. His matter is distinguishable from that of Waseem and Firoz Alam. He is in jail since 26.3.2013. He has no criminal history to his credit. His name did not find place in the statement recorded on 22.3.2013 given by the complainant and the witness Ahmad Hasan. His name came into picture for the first time when the statement of the co-accused Waseem was recorded on 22.3.2013. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that this confessional statement of the co-accused implicating the present applicant before the police is not admissible in evidence. It has further been contended that after an inordinate delay on 6.5.2013 witness Bhura named the applicant in the aforesaid offence. Such belated statement raises doubt on the prosecution story, which is unreliable. Hence, the applicant is entitled to bail. 2. 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 tampering 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. 3. Let the applicant Mulla @ Mujeebur Rahman involved in Case Crime No. 142 of 2013 under Sections 394, 307, 411, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kharkhuda, District Meerut 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.