Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2950 (ALL)

Durgesh Singh v. State of U. P.

2015-09-17

MANOJ MISRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Misra, J. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime no. 77 of 2014, under Sections 307 IPC and 12/14 D.A.A. Act, police station Naraini, District-Banda with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the first information report. The first information report has been lodged against four unknown persons and, subsequently, on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused made before the police, the name of the applicant came in light. It has been submitted that co-accused Gangadhar @ Guddu and Govind Prasad have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 11.12.2014 and 24.02.2015, passed in Bail Application No. 40006 of 2014 and Bail Application No. 5999 of 2015, respectively. It has been submitted that the applicant is in jail since 12.01.2015 and, in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. The learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, and pointed out that the applicant has criminal history of two cases. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in both the cases the applicant has been granted bail. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 8. Let applicant Durgesh Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 they 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.