Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 661 (ALL)

Amarnath Pathak v. State of U. P.

2015-03-31

SUDHIR KUMAR SAXENA

body2015
JUDGMENT Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J. Heard Sri V.K.Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri H.S.Tiwari for complainant and Sri Sharad Dixit, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not named in the FIR and only allegation assigned to him is of providing information to Udai Bhan Singh. It is further submitted that only evidence against him is a telephone call detail which shows that a call was made by Udai Bhan at 10.30 A.M. on the day of incident and incident took place at 6.30 P.M. on the same day. Injured witness has said in his statement that he had heard in the village that applicant had talked with Udai Bhan Singh on the day of occurrence. In these circumstances, there does not appear any clinching evidence against the applicant, submits Sri Shahi. 3. Sri H.S. Tiwari submits that Amarnath is a notorious person of the gang of Udai Bhan Singh who is closely connected with some influential political leader. However, Sri H.S.Tiwari and learned A.G.A. could not point out any previous criminal case against the applicant. 4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Let the applicant- Amarnath Pathak, involved in Case Crime No. 815 of 2014, under Sections 147/148/149/302/307/34/120B I.P.C. and 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station- Jagdishpur, District- Amethi 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 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.