Allahabad High Court
Chandra Pal vs State Of U.P. on 11 May, 2015
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15957 of 2015
Applicant :- Chandra Pal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Raj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Abhay Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is said to have assaulted the two injured namely Naresh and Sompal who were the sons of two deceased whereas co-accused Pappu is said to have assaulted the deceased and husband of deceased Ompal by knife. The injuries received by injured Naresh and Sompal appears to be simple in nature. There is no X-Ray report to show whether any internal damage was caused, the said fact is mentioned in para no.10 of the accompanying affidavit. As per statement of the injured Sompal, it is apparent that co-accused Pappu is said to have caused injuries to him and the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 13.1.2015.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Chandra Pal, involved in Case Crime No.02 of 2015, u/s 302, 307, 34, 504 IPC, P.S. Cantt. district Bareilly be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties 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 case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Pappu.
Order Date :- 11.5.2015
Gaurav
