Allahabad High Court
Radha Charan vs State Of U.P. on 16 May, 2022
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5484 of 2022
Applicant :- Radha Charan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai,Pramod Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Dubey
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.403 of 2021, under Section 147, 148, 302, 120B IPC, Police Station-Refinery, District-Mathura is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that age of the applicant is 75+ years and he is father of all the remaining accused persons. He has been charged with hatching the conspiracy. It is further submitted that main accused-Gopal who is the real author of the present murder case, has been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.56493 of 2021 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 27.04.2022, copy of which is produced for perusal. It is next contended that case of the applicant stands on much better footing than that of Gopal. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.10.2021.
Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail tooth and nail by making a mention that the applicant has got a criminal history of eleven cases out of which two cases are of conviction but he could not deny the fact that the role attributed to the applicant is of hatching conspiracy. Not only this, Shri Dubey, could not specifically deny the age of the applicant as 75+ years. Learned counsel for the complainant has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Mamta Nair vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 462, Lachhman Dass Vs. Resham Chand Kaler and another reported in 2018(104) ACC 942 SC and Brijmani Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar and another reported in [2021SCCOnLineSC1280].
I have keenly perused the aforesaid judgments as well as the facts of the case and I find that the aforesaid judgments are not applicable in the present case as they are distinguishable on the facts itself.
Taking into account the role attributed and age of the applicant and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and principles of parity and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant, Radha Charan, who is involved in the aforesaid case, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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 IPC.
(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:
1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.
2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 16.5.2022
Sumit S
