Allahabad High Court
Abdul Kadir vs State Of U.P. on 24 October, 2016
Bench: Ranjana Pandya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 13
Case :- BAIL No. - 8531 of 2016
Applicant :- Abdul Kadir
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Tejashwi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 9.7.2016 and he has no criminal history to his credit. It has further been submitted that the medical report does not support the prosecution version inasmuch there are no injuries of the knife on the body of the victim and even the supplementary report does not support the prosecution version. The recovery is also bad in the eyes of law as there is no independent witness to the recovery. The alleged injuries are on the non-vital part of the body. The case is triable by Magistrate-I, hence the applicant is entitled to bail.
Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 9.7.2016 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for 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 tampering 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 applicant Abdul Kadir involved in Case Crime No. 903 of 2016 under Sections 394 and 411 IPC and Section 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(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.
Order Date :- 24.10.2016
kanhaiya
