Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2585 (ALL)

Rajesh Rathaur v. State of U. P.

2018-12-20

GOVIND MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Govind Mathur, C.J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents. 2. While pressing this bail application, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is behind bars since 11th June, 2014 and a charge-sheet has already been filed on 4th August, 2014. The charges against the applicant are relating to offence under sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and as such the same are Magistrate triable. 3. It is asserted by learned Counsel for the applicant that there is no just reason now to keep the applicant behind the bars. 4. While opposing the application, it is submitted by learned Additional Government Advocate that the applicant is facing 90 cases of same nature and therefore, it would not be appropriate to release him on bail. 5. On going through the record, it reveals that all the 90 cases are outcome of a same incident and the first information reports were lodged in a very small span of time. 6. Looking to the facts stated above, especially looking to the fact that the applicant is behind the bars since 11th June, 2014 for an offence which is Magistrate triable, without making any observation on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant the application. Accordingly, the same is allowed. 7. Let the applicant Rajesh Rathaur involved in Case Crime No. 55 of 2014, under sections 419, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow be released on bail on his 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. (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.