Allahabad High Court
Rajan Singh Bhaduriya Second Bail vs State Of U.P. on 16 August, 2022
Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 3
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13582 of 2021
Applicant :- Rajan Singh Bhaduriya Second Bail
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Pooja Singh,R.B.S. Rathaur
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This second bail application has been filed by the accused-applicant Rajan Singh Bhaduriya, who is involved in Case Crime No. 94 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Udaypur, District Pratapgarh.
First bail application was rejected by observing that the evidence of last seen and the circumstantial evidence collected during the course of investigation strongly corroborated the case of the prosecution.
The trial court has recorded the evidence during pendency of the trial. The witnesses of fact have further strengthened the evidence of last seen. It is also evident that the sharp edged weapon used for commission of the offence was also recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. The evidence is at the final stage.
Learned counsel for the applicant placing reliance upon the judgment reported in 2018(3) SCC page 220 has argued that the denial of bail cannot proceed as a matter of punishment. It is further argued that there is no past criminal history attributed to the applicant who is a person of young age. The applicant's incarceration since 8.8.2019 is also highlighted.
Taking the Court through the evidence recorded by the trial court, it is pointed that even if it is assumed that the evidence of last seen is impeccable yet there does not appear to be any reluctance on the part of the deceased to have accompanied with the applicant. The motive spelt out by P.W. 3, if it is assumed to be correct, the same in the normal circumstances would not have led the deceased to accompany the applicant. Therefore, in absence of a direct evidence, the doubt as regards the commission of offence does not stand ruled out altogether.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the standard of proof for holding an accused as guilty is much higher than the strength of evidence available on record.
The accused applicant however undertakes not to misuse the personal liberty granted under this order and has assured that he shall not indulge into any anti-social or nefarious activity.
Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and it is argued that the evidence available on record does not lead to any other possible view except the involvement of the applicant in the commission of offence, therefore, the requirement of law for conviction tends to stand met with.
Having regard to the rival contentions and looking to the fact that the applicant does not have any past criminal history to his credit besides the fact that the case has already reached an advance stage of evidence where interference by the applicant in the course of trial remains no more vulnerable, the court is satisfied that a case for grant of bail is made out.
Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to 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.
Order Date :- 16.8.2022
kanhaiya
