Allahabad High Court
Shamshad vs State Of U.P. on 9 October, 2015
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL 2nd MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32472 of 2014
Applicant :- Shamshad
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Yusuf
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Avinash Pandey,Shamsuddin Ahmad
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Rajeev Bhargawa, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Zia Naz Zaidi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sangam Lal Kesherwani, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned AGA appearing for the State.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by another Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Virendra Vikram Singh,J.), vide order dated 13.05.2014. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant.
The new ground which has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant is that identically situated co-accused Kharoon @ Haroon has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2014, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25188 of 2014, and the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He further submits that from both the sides there deep rooted enmity, and informant has also a criminal history. The said fact have been mentioned in para-14 and 15 of the affidavit. The applicant has criminal history of eight cases, which have been explained properly by the applicant in paragraph nos. 15(i) to 15(viii). He submitted that some of the co-accused who were not charge-sheeted have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and trial is lingering on account of them. He submitted that the applicant may be enlarged on bail as he is languishing in jail for last two years, as he is in jail since 29.10.2013.
The learned AGA as well as Sri Sangam Lal Kesherwani, learned counsel for the complainant, have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by another Bench of this Court, but he could not dispute that co-accused Kharoon @ Haroon has been granted bail by this Court. He submits that some of the co-accused who were not charge-sheeted have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and they are still absconding, to which the learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he is in jail from last two years, and prays that he may be enlarged on bail.
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 Shamshad, involved in Case Crime No. 408 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 506, 323, IPC, Police Station Devband, District Saharanpur, be released on bail on his furnishing two sureties of Rs. one lacs, one should be family member, 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.
As the complainant has filed a Bail Cancellation Application No. 11791 of 2015 (Noor Ali Vs. State of U.P. and another), which has been disposed of by this Court, today, alongwith the present application and the trial of the present case has also been expedited, hence the trial court is directed to conclude the trial accordingly.
Order Date :- 9.10.2015/VKG
