Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 81 (ALL)

Hari Gupta v. State of U. P.

2017-01-06

ABHAY MAHADEO THIPSAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay,J. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. With their assistance, I have gone through the application and the annexures thereto. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that neither the first information report nor the statements of the eye witnesses disclose the names of the offenders. It is submitted that the applicant came to be arrested on the basis of a confessional statement of co-accused Kamlesh, allegedly made before the police in the course of the investigation. It is submitted that co-accused Sarvesh Pal, who was similarly placed, has already been released on bail by this Court (Bail Application No. 3 of 2017 decided on 4.1.2017)(Coram: Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.) . It is conceded that there is nothing to show that the applicant was identified as one of the assailants by any of the eye witnesses. In the circumstances, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail by passing an order similar to the one passed in case of the co-accused, Sarvesh Pal. The application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount on 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. However, though the applicant is released on bail, some further probe in the matter appears to be necessary in the interest of justice. The question that arises is that when there were eye witnesses who had seen the assailants, why no efforts were made to get the identity of the arrested accused as the assailants, fixed. Issue notice to the Investigating Officer seeking his explanation on this point. Notice returnable on 12th of January, 2017. On that day, the Investigating Officer shall remain present before the court in person with the case diary. The bail application is disposed of. As such, these proceedings be separately numbered as Miscellaneous Inquiry Proceedings.