Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1847 (ALL)

Som Prakash v. State of U. P.

2015-07-10

SHASHI KANT

body2015
JUDGMENT Shashi Kant, J. Heard Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 389 of 2015, under Sections 420, 399, 401, 307, 468 I.P.C., Police Station - Bilhaur, District - Kanpur Nagar, with prayer to enlarge him on bail. 3. The submission of learned counsel for applicant is that this is no injury case and no recovery has been made from the applicant. Applicant has been implicated in the present case illegally. Applicant has moved application before D.I.G., Lucknow, S.S.P., Kanpur Nagar and I.G. Zone against his illegal implication. Police has shown criminal history of one case against applicant. It has lastly been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is in jail since 09.06.2015, and in case of being enlarged on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that applicant has criminal history, and his release may cause danger to the society, and as such he is not entitled for bail. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 6. Let applicant Som Prakash be released on bail in Case Crime No. 389 of 2015, under Sections 420, 399, 401, 307, 468 I.P.C., Police Station - Bilhaur, District - Kanpur Nagar, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to following additional 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 the 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, in person, before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) 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.