Allahabad High Court
Ram Pyare And Another vs State Of U.P. on 10 August, 2016
Bench: Pratyush Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25254 of 2016
Applicant :- Ram Pyare And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mukhtar Alam,Vikrant Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J.
Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the State-respondent and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicants Ram Pyare and Narayan, who are involved in Case crime No.232 of 2016, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 452, 302/34 I.P.C, Police Station Mardah, District Ghazipur.
Learned counsel for the applicants in support of their prayer for bail submits that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that against 18 persons the F.I.R has been lodged. All the assailants have been assigned general role and against the present applicants neither any specific role has been assigned in the F.I.R nor in the statements of first informant and other injured. There is a cross version of the occurrence. The deceased had died due to head injury caused by hard and blunt object. The applicants have no previous history. They have permanent residence. The applicants are not likely to abscond.
On behalf of State and complainant the bail has been opposed.Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for complainant submitted that not only Harikesh Rajbhar but also his wife Sangeeta and other Sunil, Bablu, Sarvjeet Rajbhar and Musafit Rajbhar had sustained grievous injuries. He further submits that it was premeditated occurrence in which a large number of accused had participated, therefore, the bail should not be granted.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and going through the record, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let applicants Ram Pyare and Narayan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i). The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
(iii). In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicants 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 10.8.2016
G.S
