Allahabad High Court
Sarvendra Batham vs State Of U.P. on 7 May, 2015
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15647 of 2015
Applicant :- Sarvendra Batham
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.K.Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is named in the FIR and the informant of the case is not an eye witness of the incident. He further submits that on the basis of the statement of an alleged eye witness, namely, Sandeep, the role assigned to the applicant is that the applicant along co-accused Dheeraj Yadav is said to have assaulted the deceased, whereas the co-accused Shivam is said to have assaulted the deceased by firearm weapon. He further submits that co-accused Dheeraj Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 6.5.2015 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15281 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 14.2.2015.
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-Sarvendra Batham involved in Case Crime No.125 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Chhibramau, District Kannauj 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 the case of co-accused Shivam.
Order Date :- 7.5.2015
NS
