Allahabad High Court
Patiram And Another vs State Of U.P. on 7 August, 2015
Bench: Anant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 14
Case :- BAIL No. - 6762 of 2015
Applicant :- Patiram And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Anant Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicants in case crime No. 186/2015, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1986, police station - Mallawan, District - Hardoi.
It is stated by learned counsel for the applicants that on the basis of two cases shown against them Gangster Act has been levelled. It is further stated that the applicants have already been granted bail by this Court in Case Crime No. 836/2014, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Mallawan, District - Hardoi vide order dated 9.7.2015 passed in Bail No. 5916 of 2015. Perusal of the F.I.R. it is apparent that applicants are not named in the F.I.R.. It is also stated that a copy of chargesheet has already been filed, which shows that applicants' name has not been figured in the same and the applicant have no concerned with the said case.
Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicants (Patiram and Chhotey Lal) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 7.8.2015
S. Kumar
