Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1506 (ALL)

Monu @ Chapter @ Rohit v. State of U. P.

2020-12-16

RAHUL CHATURVEDI

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.61 of 2019, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station-Gwaltoli, District-Kanpur Nagar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. 3. Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that one Mukesh has lodged an FIR on 19.04.2019 against unknown persons mentioning there therein that at Bakkal Maidan some unidentified dead body was lying in abandoned condition. An information was given to the police, accordingly the aforesaid FIR was came into existence under Section 302 and 201 IPC. During investigation it was revealed that dead body was identified by one Hemant Katariya, uncle of the deceased, it is the dead body of his nephew Piyush Katariya. The dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy and there was laceration, incised wound present all over the body and the cause of death as per the opinion of doctor is ante mortem throttling. The name of the applicant figure up after eleven months of the incident. In the second statement of Aman Awasthi, Ravi Varma @ Montu. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.03.2020. 4. Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. Learned AGA submitted that the deceased was having a chequered history and there is nothing on record to establish any links of the applicant with the aforesaid crime. There are three criminal history and which have been duly explained in paragraph 34 of the affidavit. 5. I have perused the statements, the statements are most in cursory and tangent way without attaching any conviction in those statements. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that after eleven months of the incident at the pointing out of the applicant one blood stained axe was recovered from the place of incident. It is indeed shocking and surprising that the blood stained axe lying there was recovered after eleven months that too contained blood stained? 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that after eleven months of the incident at the pointing out of the applicant one blood stained axe was recovered from the place of incident. It is indeed shocking and surprising that the blood stained axe lying there was recovered after eleven months that too contained blood stained? 6. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. 7. Let the applicant-Monu @ Chapter @ Rohit, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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 HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 9. Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-: 1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored. 2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. 3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. 4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.