Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 43 (ALL)

Raj Kumar v. State of U. P.

2018-01-05

ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA II

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and perused the record. 2. This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant Raj Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 423 of 2017, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 I. P. C. , P. S. Nighasan, District Lakhimpur Kheri. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that as per prosecution version injured has received injuries by sickle which was caused by accused-applicant. ? It is submitted that all the injuries on body of the injured were simple in nature. Even the story of theft did not find favour from the Investigating Officer and Section 379 I. P. C. was omitted. Accused-applicant is languishing in jail since 18. 09. 17. It is next submitted that the applicant is neither a previous convict nor he has any previous criminal history. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. ? In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 4. Learned A. G. A. opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions of learned counsel, without commenting upon merit of the case, I am of the opinion that the accused-applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 6. Let applicant Raj Kumar be released on bail in the aforementioned case crime with the following conditions : i. The applicant will furnish a personal bond with two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ii. The applicant will appear and strictly comply following terms of bond executed under section 437 sub section 3 of Chapter- 33 of Cr. P. C. - (a) applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter. ii. The applicant will appear and strictly comply following terms of bond executed under section 437 sub section 3 of Chapter- 33 of Cr. P. C. - (a) applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter. (b) applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and (c) applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. iii. The applicant shall cooperate with investigation /trial. iv. 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. v. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. vi. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, 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. vii. The applicant shall remain present, 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.