Allahabad High Court
Ajeet Kumar (Second Bail) 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. - 8022 of 2013
Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar (Second Bail)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,U.K.Pandey.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Heard Sri Mridul Rakesh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri U.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
The first bail application has been rejected by Hon'ble V.C. Gupta, J. on 1st May, 2013, hence the present second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant which came up before His Lordship on 6th February, 2014 and His Lordship has released the matter on 6th February, 2014 itself.
The new ground which has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant is that the evidence of four witnesses including the formal witness, i.e., Dr. S.K. Rai, who has conducted the post mortem of the deceased have been recorded by the trial court on 18.10.2013and from a perusal of the evidence of the doctor, it is evident that it is a case of hanging. The deceased died as a result of asphyxia as a result of hanging though it is a case of the prosecution that firstly the deceased was done to death by administering some intoxicating substance and then hanged which totally belied after the evidence of the doctor, hence the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The applicant was employed in the Indian Army at the time of incident and he has surrendered before the competent court in the present case on 8.12.2013. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants have already been considered by this Court while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant and drawn the attention of the Court towards the photographs of the deceased which have been annexed with the counter affidavit but could not dispute the fact that at the time of rejecting the first bail application of the applicant, the evidence of the doctor has not been recorded before the trial court and further the photographs have not been shown or put to the doctor during the course of trial.
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 Ajeet Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 210 of 2012 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station P.G.I. District Lucknow 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
