Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1643 (ALL)

Acche Khan @ Gulam Mohammad v. State of U. P.

2015-06-29

RAMESH SINHA

body2015
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. Heard Sri Jyotindra Misra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kapil Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The incident has taken place on 15.1.2015 and FIR was lodged on 16.1.2015. The dead-body of the deceased was recovered from the road side. After three days of the incident the dead-body of the deceased was identified by the mother of the deceased at the Police Station. The statement of the mother and brother of the deceased was recorded on 20.1.2015 in which it is stated that the applicant was having illicit relationship with the deceased who has murdered the deceased. There is no eye-witness account. The confessional statement of the applicant was recorded in which he stated that co-accused has brought the Petrol for murder of the deceased. The said evidence is inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The deceased was done to death in some other manner and not as per prosecution case. The applicant is in jail since 22.1.2015 and has no criminal history. 3. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. 4. 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. 5. Let the applicant Acche Khan @ Gulam Mohammad, involved in Case Crime No.154 of 2015, u/s 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Ikauna, district Shrawasti be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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. 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 trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within the period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before the trial court, if there is no legal impediment. Office is directed to send the certified copy of this order to the trial court for it's compliance.