HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 17 Case :- BAIL No. - 1301 of 2014 Applicant :- Anupama Singh (Second Bail) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajbaksh Singh,Akhilesh Kr Jaiswal,Ran Vijai Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Anil Kr. Singh Bisen Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Ran Vijai Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Anil Kumar Singh Bisen, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected for want of prosecution, hence this second bail application on behalf of the applicant.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that admittedly as per the prosecution case, no role of causing injury to the deceased has been assigned to the applicant as the same has been assigned to co-accused Vikram Singh, who shot dead the deceased. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 18.11.2012.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the trial is at the verge of its conclusion but could not dispute the fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant Anupama Singh involved in Case Crime No. 259 of 2012 under Sections 302, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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 her 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 her in accordance with law.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in view of the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 30.4.2015 shiraz