Allahabad High Court
Anuj Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 17 February, 2020
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7115 of 2020 Applicant :- Anuj Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mewa Lal Shukla,Manoj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant, Anuj Gupta, in Case Crime No. 912 of 2014, S.T. No. 199 of 2015, under Sections- 302/34 & 504 IPC, Police Station- Tilhar, District- Shahjahanpur, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The submission is that the role ofexhortation was assigned to the applicant but no charge sheet was submitted by theInvestigating Officer against him. Now he has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C for facing trial. In the statements of P.W-1 and P.W-2 recorded by the court below, role of exhortation has again been assigned to the applicant. Theapplicant alleges false implication in this case. He is in jail since 22.01.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit.
Regarding the role of exhortation assigned to the accuseds it has been found that it is a week type of evidence as held by the Apex Court in the case of Jail Haque vs. State of Bihar, 1974 AIR SC 0-45. The Apex Court has held in the above noted case that eye-witnesses are prone to exaggerate thing and to involve as many accuseds as possible. The evidence exhortation is, in very nature of things, a week piece of evidence. There is quite often tendency to implicate some persons, in addition to the actual assailants by attributing to that person role of exhortation to the assailants to assault the victim. Unless the evidence in this respect is clear, cogent and reliable no conviction for abetment can be recorded against the person assigned the role of exhortation.
Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicants but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions noticed above, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.
Let the applicant- Anuj Gupta, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond 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 not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.
(v) 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 :- 17.2.2020 Rohit