Allahabad High Court
Sangram Singh vs State Of U.P. on 14 May, 2015
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- BAIL No. - 6563 of 2013
Applicant :- Sangram Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- A.Z. Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Sarvesh Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri A.Z. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sarvesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Afaq Zaki Khan, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the F.I.R. general role of firing at the deceased by fire arm has been assigned to applicant along with other co-accused persons but in the statement of the injured witness, namely, Guddu @ Mahendra Pal recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it has been stated that it was co-accused Mahendra Singh Yadav, who fired two shots at the deceased which hit him. He submitted that as per the F.I.R., the informant, who is also an eye witness has also stated that co-accused Mahendra Singh Yadav was armed with country made rifle along with co-accused Vijal Pal and the post mortem report of the deceased shows that the deceased actually received three injuries of country made rifle and the two injuries are communicating wounds of injury nos. 2 and 4. The injury no. 5 also appears to be of rifle injury. He submitted that the applicant was armed with country made pistol and the deceased did not received any injury of country made pistol. Moreover, the injuries received by the injured Guddu @ Mahendra Pal can at the most be caused by country made pistol which was fired by the applicant, who was armed with country made pistol along with five other co-accused persons, who were also armed with country made pistol. He submits that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Mahendra Yadav and Vijay Pal and the prosecution story has been exaggerated in order to increase the number of accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that till date only charges have been framed against the applicant by the trial court and no prosecution witness has been examined. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail last more than two years.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the case of the applicant be distinguished from co-accused Mahendra Singh Yadav and Vijay Pal.
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 Sangram Singh involved in Case Crime No. 818 of 2012 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 120-B I.P.C. and 3 (2) V S.C./S.T. Act, police station Maigalganj, District Lakhimpur Kheri. be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two heavy 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 trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 14.5.2015
shiraz
