HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 17 Case :- BAIL No. - 533 of 2015 Applicant :- Dinesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Balram Singh Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Sri Amitabh Singh, Advocate states that he has taken no objection from Sri Nrendra Gupta, earlier counsel for the applicant.
Heard Sri Amitabh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Balram Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and Ms. Poonam Sinha, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that though the applicant was named in the F.I.R. along with other co-accused persons but admittedly as per the prosecution case, the role assigned to the applicant is hatching conspiracy of murder of the deceased, which is absolutely false as there is no cogent evidence against him to show that he has conspired the murder of the deceased. The role of causing injury to the deceased by knife has been assigned to co-accused Awadhesh. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only on account of the inimical relationship with the deceased with respect to some land. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 12.11.2014.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant was having litigation with the deceased with respect to some land on account of which he conspired the murder of the deceased but could not dispute the fact that no role of causing injury to the deceased has been assigned to 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 Dinesh Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 320 of 2014 under Sections 302/34/120-B I.P.C., police station Sidhauli, District Sitapur be released on bail on his 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 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 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.
The case of the applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Awadhesh.
Order Date :- 1.5.2015 shiraz