Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3154 (ALL)

Sugge Lal @ Prem Chand v. State of U. P.

2015-10-07

HARSH KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated for the alleged incident of arson and putting fire to thatched construction (chappers) of several persons; that in F.I.R. as many as 29 persons have been named and allegations have been made against them; that several other persons are also allegedly involved in the incident; that the applicants did not commit any incident in question and did not put any chapper or house on fire; that the applicants have been falsely implicated due to communal rivalry; that regarding the same incident, F.I.R. was lodged by S.I. B.R. Bind as case crime no.674 of 2005, under sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 188, 339, 353, 307, 435, 440 Indian Penal Code Act, 1860 and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act in which the applicants have been released on bail by Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh vide order dated 2.9.2015, copy filed as Annexure No.6 to the affidavit; that co-accused Shivshanker Pandey has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.9.2015 passed in Bail No. 8346 of 2015, copy of which has been produced for perusal; that the applicants have no criminal history; that the applicants undertake that they will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicants are in custody since 2.9.2015. 3. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, grant of bail to co-accused as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. 5. 3. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, grant of bail to co-accused as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. 5. Let the applicants Sugge Lal @ Prem Chand, Kallu @ Purushottam, Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Raveendra Nath Mishra, Santosh Vishwakarma and Sateesh Vishwakarma be released on bail in Case Crime No.673-B of 2005, under Sections 147, 504, 506, 436 IPC, P.S. Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions: - (i) The applicants will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that they are abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C. (ii) The applicants will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicants will not indulge in any unlawful activities. 6. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison.