Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 785 (ALL)

Aamir v. State of U. P.

2017-03-20

ANANT KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Anant Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed today are taken on record. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 227 of 2016 , under Sections 302/34 of IPC and 3/25/27 of Arms Act, police station Kotwali Nagar, District-Sultanpur. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the name of the applicant is not in the First Information Report rather one Kunli was named and he was assigned the role of opening fire upon the deceased. But later on, on the statement of the other witnesses, the name of the applicant was brought into the light. The complaint is not a eye-witness of the incident. It is also stated that the witness Kamal Ahmad, who is shown to be the eye-witness of the occurrence was also the witness of the memo of recovery of empty Cartridge of .32 bore which was recovered on the date of occurrence itself. But at that time this Kamal Ahmad has not been disclosed the name of the applicant. It appears that it is after thought that name of the applicant is brought on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let applicant Aamir 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 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 3 13 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.