Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 801 (ALL)

Santosh Dheemar v. State of U. P.

2017-03-21

PANKAJ NAQVI

body2017
JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi, J. Heard Sri Prem Shankar Kushwaha, learned counsel for applicant- Santosh Dheemar, Sri S.D. Yadav, the learned A.G.A, and perused the record. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 532 of 2015, under Sections 386, 394, 411 I.P.C., police station Sipri Bazar, district Jhansi. The case of prosecution in brief is that informant received a ransom phone call on 07.10.2015 for payment of Rs.10 lakhs, in respect of which an F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 532 of 2015, under Section 386 I.P.C., police station Sipri Bazar, district came to be lodged after a month on 07.11.2015 only but as demand was not fulfilled, applicant along with other co-accused are alleged to have assaulted the informant on 23.04.2016. Applicant claims parity with the order of co-accused Bihari Namdev, who stands bailed out by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 4801 of 2017 on 8.3.2017. It is submitted that no separate first information report was registered in respect of occurrence dated 23.04.2016, which makes the case of prosecution under suspect, alleged recovery of Rs.2,580/- from applicant and simultaneously, false implication of applicant and two other co-accused under Sections 394, 411 I.P.C. is for ulterior motives is open to suspect in the absence of any independent public witness, alleged recoveries are not attributable to applicant and the history of solitary case Case Crime No. 105 of 2016, under Sections 392/411 I.P.C, police station Raksa, Jhansi is concerned, applicant claims to have been enlarged on bail by the court below on 01.06.2016, applicant is in jail since 23.06.2016, undertakes not to misuse the liberty, he be enlarged on bail. Learned A.G.A, has opposed the bail. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Let the applicant involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following 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 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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution would be at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.