Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1782 (ALL)

Parmeshwar (Second Bail) v. State of U. P.

2015-07-07

MAHENDRA DAYAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal, J. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State today in Court, is taken on record. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 3. This is a second bail application on behalf of the applicant Parmeshwar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 79.2014, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, relating to Police Station Sandana, District Sitapur. 4. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as not pressed on 1.4.2015. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR has been lodged only on the basis of suspicion that the deceased was having illicit affairs with the wife of present applicant, therefore, he had killed the deceased. He further submits that during investigation the applicant and another co-accused made their confessional statement. Apart from confessional statement of the applicant there is no other witness to indicate involvement of the applicant in this case. The entire prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no cogent evidence against the applicant . The co-accused Pramod and Smt. Sangeeta who is the wife of the applicant, have already been release don bail. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that no role has been assigned to the applicants. The role of firing is assigned to co-accused Rameshwar. 7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that Pramod was released on bail because he was not named in the FIR and Smt. Sangeeta was released on bail on account being lady. The learned A.G.A. has further submitted that as per the confessional statement of the co-accused, the applicant himself strangulated the deceased, as a result of which he died, therefore, main role of killing the deceased is assigned to the present applicant. 8. In reply the aforesaid argument, it has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that confessional statement of a co-accused cannot be read against another co-accused. Except the suspicion and last seen evidence there is no other evidence against the applicant. 9. Having considered the submissions on behalf of the parties but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for bail. 10. Except the suspicion and last seen evidence there is no other evidence against the applicant. 9. Having considered the submissions on behalf of the parties but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for bail. 10. Let the applicant Parmeshwar involved in the above noted case crime number 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. (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.