Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1560 (ALL)

Manish Mishra v. State of U. P.

2017-06-27

RAMESH SINHA

body2017
JUDGMENT Sri S.K.Chaubey, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant today in Court, which is taken on record. Heard Sri Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K.Chaubey, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Sanjay Tripathi, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that though the informant is not the eye witness of the occorrence but the star witness of the occurrence, namely, Raj Kumar whose statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, has stated that the injury which was caused to the deceased was assisgned to the co-accused Rinku Pandey whose name was changed, though his actual name is Sonu @ Brijesh Pandey, who has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.4.2017 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 13693 of 2017, copy of which has been annexed at pages-43 & 44 of the bail application. He next argued that if the prosecution case is taken to its own face value, the case would not travel beyond Section 304 I.P.C. The applicant is stated to have been assigned the role of causing injury to the deceased by bricks. The applicant is in jail since 4.1.2017. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 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-Manish Mishra involved in Case Crime No. 610 of 2016, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Chaubeypur, District Varanasi 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. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it.