Allahabad High Court
Amit Shukla @ Chhota Amit (Second ... vs State Of U.P. on 15 June, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 21
Case :- BAIL No. - 1669 of 2021
Applicant :- Amit Shukla @ Chhota Amit (Second Bail)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Naresh Singh Chauhan,Bhoopendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
[In Residence]
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
The case is called out through video conferencing.
Learned counsel Sri R.N.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the accused-applicant-Amit Shukla @ Chhota Amit and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Prem Prakash, Advocate for the State are connected through video conferencing in virtual hearing of the case.
This is second bail application of the accused-applicant. The first bail application has been rejected for want of prosecution by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.08.2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 454(B) of 2015.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused-applicant-Amit Shukla @ Chhota Amit who is involved in Case Crime No. 3091 of 2013, under Sections 224, 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Kheri.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged between the parties of the case. The case is ripe for hearing.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Reading over the First Information Report, learned counsel for the bail-applicant submitted that the accused-applicant is not named in the First Information Report. However, during investigation when the co-accused Dost Mohammad was arrested and interrogated then he for the first time named the applicant. Further submission on behalf of the accused-applicant is that the statement of the co-accused Dost Mohammad cannot be read against the present accused-applicant as per the provision of the Indian Evidence Act. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant and he is not previously convicted.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant further submitted that co-accused persons, namely, Chunni and Raj Kumar, having similar role to that of present accused-applicant, have already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 29.05.2015 and 19.08.2015 passed in Bail Nos. 2648 of 2014 and 3872 of 2014 respectively. As such, the present accused-applicant, who is languishing in jail since 19.09.2013, is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. Further submission is that there is no possibility of the accused-applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the accused-applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the accused-applicant alongwith the co-accused Dost Mohammad not only killed the police constable but also extended their help to Dost Mohammad and Bagga to escape from the police custody while they were being taken from the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I to the police lockup. However, it is not disputed that except the confessional statement of the co-accused there is no cogent evidence against the accused-applicant.
Keeping into mind the valuable right of personal liberty and the fundamental principle not to disbelieve a person to be innocent unless held guilty and if he is not arraigned with the charge of an offence for which the law has put on him a reverse burden of proving his innocence as, held in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in [(2018) 3 SCC 22], I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the bail-applicant to enlarge him on bail.
Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation, complicity of the accused-applicant, gravity of the offence and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the period for which he is in jail, I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the accused-applicant. The accused-applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let applicant-Amit Shukla @ Chhota Amit be released on bail in Case Crime No. 3091 of 2013, under Sections 224, 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Kheri, on his furnishing a personal bond worth Rs. 100,000/- (One lac) and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional 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 :- 15.6.2021
kkv/
