Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1562 (ALL)

Vijay Kumar Pasi @ Jagga v. State of U. P

2015-06-17

AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Akhtar Husain Khan, J. Heard learned counsel for accused-applicant, Vijay Kumar Pasi @ Jagga as well as learned A.G.A. on bail application moved by said accused-applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in Crime No.288 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 307/34 I.P.C., Police Station Bachharawan, District Raebareli. 2. Learned counsel for accused-applicant contended that accused-applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. 3. Learned counsel for accused-applicant further contended that accused-applicant is not named in F.I.R. and even injured witness, Pradeep Kumar, Home Guard, has not stated his name in his first statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 5.5.2014. 4. Learned counsel for accused-applicant contended that name of accused-applicant has been stated for the first time by said injured witness Pradeep Kumar, Home Guard, by filing affidavit on 5.6.2014. Thereafter, statement of said injured witness, Pradeep Kumar was again recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated name of accused-applicant along with other co-accused. But in this subsequent statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. said injured witness, Pradeep Kumar, Home Guard has stated that co-accused Raj Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Kamlesh and Deshraj Pasi @ Chela caught hold of deceased, and co-accused Sushil and Shailendra caused injuries to deceased as well as to him by iron rods. He has simply stated that accused-applicant along with some other co-accused has encircled deceased and him. 5. Learned counsel for accused-applicant contended that co-accused Sushil Kumar and Shailendra, who have assigned role of causing injuries to deceased and Home Guard, Pradeep Kumar, have already been granted bail vide orders dated 13.4.2015 and 18.3.2015 passed by two coordinate benches of this court in Bail No.7796 of 2014 and Bail No.7838 of 2014 respectively. 6. In view of above, learned counsel for accused-applicant prayed that accused-applicant should be released on bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. opposed bail application of accused-applicant but conceded that aforesaid co-accused Sushil Kumar and Shailendra have already been granted bail. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. Admittedly, accused-applicant is not named in F.I.R. and injured witness, Pradeep Kumar, Home Guard has not stated his name in his first statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 5.5.2014. Name of accused-applicant has been stated by said witness Pradeep Kumar, Home Guard on 5.6.2014 by filing affidavit before Investigating Officer. 9. Admittedly, accused-applicant is not named in F.I.R. and injured witness, Pradeep Kumar, Home Guard has not stated his name in his first statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 5.5.2014. Name of accused-applicant has been stated by said witness Pradeep Kumar, Home Guard on 5.6.2014 by filing affidavit before Investigating Officer. Thereafter, statement of witness, Pradeep Kumar, has been recorded again under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated name of accused-applicant but has assigned him only role of encircling deceased and him. In his subsequent statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has stated that co-accused Raj Kumar, Rajesh, Kamlesh and Deshraj caught hold of him and deceased, and co-accused Sushil Kumar and Shailendra caused injuries to them with iron rods. 10. Co-accused, Sushil Kumar and Shailendra have already been granted bail vide above two orders passed by two coordinate benches of this court. Co-accused Deshraj Pasi @ Chela, Rajesh Kumar and Kamlesh have also been granted bail vide orders dated 19.9.2014, 14.11.2014 and 23.9.2014 passed by two coordinate benches of this court in Bail No.6228 of 2014, Bail No.8078 of 2014 and Bail No.6298 of 2014 respectively. 11. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record as well as bail granted to above co-accused, I am of the view that accused-applicant, Vijay Kumar Pasi @ Jagga, should also be released on bail. 12. In view of discussion made above, bail application of accused-applicant, Vijay Kumar Pasi @ Jagga, is allowed. He shall be released on bail on furnishing two sureties with personal bond each of like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Trial Court concerned subject to 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.