Ramesh @ Tarapuriya vs State Of U.P.
2016 Latest Caselaw 6087 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 43
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32567 of 2016
 

 
Applicant :- Ramesh @ Tarapuriya
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Nigam
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant Ramesh @Tarapuriya, who is involved in Case Crime No.180 of 2016, under sections 304/506 I.P.C, police Station Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar.

Learned counsel for the applicant  submits that  the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of village politics. There is no direct eye witness account. The deceased had died on 4.4.2016. The F.I.R has been lodged on 13.5.2016. No explanation has been given for lodging the F.I.R with delay. Against the present applicant. there is no evidence  to show his complicity. According to him from the post-mortem report it is reflected  that the deceased   had consumed alcohol before he died. Thus, according to him his death was natural.The applicant  has no previous criminal history. He is a family man.  He is not likely to abscond.

On behalf of State the prayer for bail has been opposed.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the 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 applicant Ramesh alias Tarapuriya be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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 applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he  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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

(iii). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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 his, 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 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 her bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 22.9.2016

G.S