Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1644 (ALL)

Mote @ Surya Prakash Tiwari v. State of U. P.

2015-06-29

RAMESH SINHA

body2015
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Mohan Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there are cross reports of the incident. There has been loss of life to either side. The deceased though lodged FIR but he did not name any one in the FIR. His statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he did not name any one. Subsequently the statement of the brother of deceased Ram Suresh who was eye-witness of the incident was also recorded who in his first statement he did not name anyone and in the second statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. he has assigned the role of causing injuries to the applicant which is an afterthought. Co-accused Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari @ Sonu, Bhallar Mishra @ Sudhakar Mishra and Dev Prakash Singh have already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court on 3.4.2015, 29.4.2015 in Bail Nos. 2227 of 2015, 9325 of 2014 and 9242 of 2014. The applicant is in jail since 3.7.2014 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 Mote @ Surya Prakash Tiwari, involved in Case Crime No.190 of 2014, u/s 302/34 IPC, P.S. Pura Kalandar, district Faizabad 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: - (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.