Allahabad High Court
Dharam Pal Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 24 April, 2015
Bench: Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-Ii
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- BAIL No. - 1148 of 2015
Applicant :- Dharam Pal Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Yadav,Ashok Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II,J.
Heard learned counsel for accused-applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and gone through entire record.
Applicant Dharam Pal Yadav is involved in case crime no. 263 of 2014, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 307 IPC, police station Kakori, district Lucknow.
It has been contended by learned counsel for accused-applicant that in fact whole story is highly concocted and it has been raised because of enmity, which will be clear from papers filed along with the bail application. It has been further contended that the injury report was obtained after three months from medical college in which no clear opinion has been given by the doctors as to how the injuries were caused. It has been further contended that though the injured was admitted on 4th of June of 2014, but he was discharged on 6th of June 2014, which indicates that no grievous injury was caused. It has been further contended that there is no supplementary report connected with the injured. It has been further contended that the accused-applicant is in jail since 27.09.2014 and he has got no criminal history to his credit as averred in para-14 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.
Bail is opposed by the learned Additional Government Advocate on the ground of injuries caused to the injured, but on query being made by the Court it has been submitted that no supplementary report is available on record nor the injuries indicate as to how they were caused. The period of detention is not disputed.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the contentions raised by learned counsel for both sides, and without entering into merit of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant Dharam Pal Yadav accused of above-mentioned crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable 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 his under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
(iii). in case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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; and
(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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 24.4.2015
MVS Chauhan/-
