Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Shiraj Khan (Second ... vs State Of U.P. on 15 May, 2015
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- BAIL No. - 4956 of 2013
Applicant :- Mohammad Shiraj Khan (Second Bail)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Misra,K K Singh,Nisar Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Avinash Singh
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nisar Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avinash Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Alok Mohan Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by Hon'ble V.C. Gupta, J. vide order dated 20.5.2013 for want of prosecution.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the son of the informant went missing on 5.8.2011 for which a missing report was lodged and F.I.R. was registered on 3.11.2011 in which no one was named. Thereafter an application was moved on 15.12.2014 before the concerned police station by the informant stating that two co-accused Abhay Joshi and Shabbir have made an extra judicial confession that they along with the applicant and co-accused Razi had committed the abduction of the victim and he was done to death by the applicant along with co-accused Razi and there is no legal evidence to connect him with the present crime only on the basis of extra judicial confession. He further submits that so far as recovery of Sim card which is said to be used and ransom was asked by the grand father of the victim, in the crime is concerned, the same has been recovered from co-accused Razi a. So far applicant is concerned, no incriminating article was recovered either from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. He submits that till date only charges have been framed and no prosecution witness has been examined. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 26.9.2011.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
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 Mohammad Shiraj Khaninvolved in Case Crime No. 556 of 2011 under Sections 364A/34, 302/34, 201/34 I.P.C., police station Motipur, District Bahraich 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 :- 15.5.2015
shiraz
