Allahabad High Court
Sumit Sapera vs State Of U.P. on 1 June, 2015
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19244 of 2015
Applicant :- Sumit Sapera
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nasiruzzaman
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Sri D.K.Srivastava and Sri J.P.Tripathi, Advocates have filed power on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Nasiruzzaman, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.K.Srivastava and Sri J.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Brijesh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the co-accused Yogendra has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.5.2015 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17279 of 2015 and the case of the applicant stands of identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 25.1.2015.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Bail order of aforesaid co-accused has been produced by the learned counsel for the applicant. The same is taken on record.
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 Sumit Sapera involved in Case Crime No. 391 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120B IPC, P.S.-Tappal, District Aligarh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs.2,00,000/- (one should be family member) 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 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 trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within the period of eight months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before the trial court, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 1.6.2015
Ashish Pd.
