Allahabad High Court
Sachin vs State Of U.P. on 22 July, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:116465 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26625 of 2024 Applicant :- Sachin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Pawan Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Sachin, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0082 of 2021, under Sections 147, 302, 34 IPC, Police Station-Chaubiya, District-Etawah during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Case No. 1182 of 2021 (State Vs. Sachin & 4 others), under Sections 147/34 and 302 IPC, Police Station-Chaubiya, District-Etawah now pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Etawah.
4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40042 of 2021 (Sachin Vs. State of U.P.), which was decided along with Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33294 of 2021 (Dharmveer @ Bablu Vs. State of U.P.).
5. Subsequent to above, applicant filed his repeat application for bail, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35664 of 2022 (Sachin VS. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 27.09.2022 is reproduced herein under:-
"1. Heard Mr. Shiv Raj Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This is second bail application filed by applicant-Sachin seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.82 of 2021, under sections 147 302, 34, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Chaubiya, District-Etawah, during pendency of trial.
4. The first bail application of applicant-Sachin was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 08.04.2022. For ready reference same is reproduced herein-under:
"1. Heard Mr. Prakash Chandra Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant, Sachin, Mr. Akash Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant, Dharmveer @ Bablu, the learned AGA for State and Mr. Narendra Singh, the learned counsel for first informant.
2. These bail applications have been filed by applicants, Sachin and Dharmveer @ Bablu seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.82 of 2021, under Sections 147, 302/34 IPC, Police Station Chaubiya, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial.
3. Perused the record.
4. It transpires from record that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 11.06.2021 a delayed FIR dated 12.06.2021 was lodged by first informant, Sri Indrapal Singh and was registered as Case Crime No.0082 of 2021, under Sections 147, 302/34 IPC, Police Station Chaubiya, District Etawah. In the aforesaid FIR, six persons namely, Sachin, Deepak, Adesh, Dharmveer, Vinod and Ajay have been nominated as named accused whereas one unknown person has also been arraigned as an accused.
5. In brief, the prosecution story as unfolded in FIR is to the effect that on 11.06.2021 at around 06:00 p.m. Anil Kumar son of first informant went with Sachin and Deepak on their motorcycle to settle the accounts. While son of the first informant was traveling in the company of Sachin and Deepak, he was seen by Rakesh Kumar, Ram Vilas and Raju. Thereafter son of the first informant was put to death. Upon receiving aforesaid information he came to Gopalpur where he saw the dead body of his son in front of the house of Deepak.
6. After lodging of the aforementioned FIR, investigating officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII CrPC.
7. The inquest (panchayatnama) of the body of the deceased was conducted on 12.06.2021. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest (panch witnesses), nature of death of deceased was homicidal. Thereafter the postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 12.06.2021. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon, the cause of the death of deceased was shock and haemorrhage due to antemortem injury. The autopsy surgeon found following antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-
"1. A contusion 5.0 cm x 4.0 cm on Rt. side of thiporal region.
2. Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm left temporal region.
3. Contusion 8.0 cm x 4.0 cm on left side of forehead including left eye.
4. Abrasion 4.0 cm x 1.0 cm Rt. side of chest laterally 7.0 cm below Rt. axilla.
5. Contusion 10 cm x 4 cm present on left front.
6. Contusion 12 cm x 1 cm present Rt. upper arm.
7. Contusion 8 cm x 3 cm on Right posterion present of arm.
9. Contusion 6 cm x 2 cm present right porteor arpit of arm.
10. Multiple contusion on whole buttock.
11. Contusion 10 cm x 3 cm right back of thigh.
12. Unterior 4 cm x 4 cm left back of thigh.
13. A lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm present on left leg 15 cm upper left lower joint.
14. A lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm present left leg 9 cm above left of joint.
15. A lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm present on right leg 10 cm above Rt. ankle joint."
8. Thereafter the investigating officer examined the following witnesses under Section 161 CrPC, namely; Indrapal Singh, Sudesh, Rakesh Kumar, Ram Vilas, Raju, Yogendra Yadav, Mohit Kumar, Vipin Kumar, Dr. Nikhil Kumar, Dr. Abdul Qadir, Inspector Ravendra Singh, Constable 350 Gaurav Vashisth, H.C. 445 Surendra Bahadur Singh, Mukesh Kumar Solanki and Santosh Kumar.
9. On the basis of above and other material collected by the investigating officer during course of investigation he came to the conclusion that the complicity of named accused is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted that chargesheet dated 19.08.2021 whereby five of the named accused namely, Sachin, Adesh, Dharmveer, Vinod Kumar and Ajay @ Ajay Babu have been chargesheeted under Sections 147, 302/34 IPC whereas one of the named accused namely, Deepak was found to be a juvenile. After submission of chargesheet cognizance was taken upon same by the court concerned. As offence complained of is triable by the Court of Sessions, concerned Magistrate accordingly committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
10. At the very outset, Mr. Prakash Chandra Srivastava and Mr. Akash Mishra, the learned counsel for applicants jointly submit that out of the five chargesheeted accused, three have already been enlarged on bail. Details of the same are as under:-
"1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42349 of 2021 (Ajay @ Ajay Babu Vs. State of UP) vide order dated 16.11.2021- "Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for State, Sri Prashant Verma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Narendra Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record.
Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No.82 of 2021, under Sections 147, 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Chaubiya, District Etawah, applied for bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits in following manner :-
(i) Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has committed no offence. Entire prosecution story is false and fake.
(ii) Although accused-applicant is named in the FIR but he has no concerned with the present crime. Informant himself is not an eye witness of the incident. He is only witness of last seen against Sachin and Deepak. There is nothing on record who has seen the incident or accused killing the deceased Anil Kumar. There is general allegation against all the accused persons. FIR is against seven accused persons while the deceased sustained fifteen injuries. FIR was registered after recovery of dead body.
(iii) Applicant is in jail since 13.06.2021, having no criminal history.
(iv) There is no possibility of the applicants fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and they will continue present before the Court till disposal of the trial. Due to heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no possibility of early conclusion of the trial.
Sri Prashant Verma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Narendra Singh, learned Counsel for the informant is present but he did not utter a single word to oppose the bail application.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that accused-applicant is named in the FIR. Victim deceased sustained 15 injuries on his person but admitted that there is general allegation and no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused. He could not show any witness who has seen the accused assaulting the victim or any other circumstantial evidence against the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, detention of applicant in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction, role of present applicant in incident, evidence collected by I.O. during investigation, injuries found on the person of victim and without commenting upon the merit of the case, applicant deserves bail.
Accordingly, bail application is allowed.
Let applicant Ajay @ Ajay Babu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and filing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
2. The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.
3. During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.
In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law."
2. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40936 of 2021 (Aadesh @ Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of UP) vide order dated 22.11.2021-
"Heard over bail application moved by applicant, Aadesh @ Dinesh Kumar, in Case Crime No. 82 of 2021, under Sections- 147, 302/34 I.P.C., P.S. Chaubiya, District- Etawah.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 9.7.2021; he is of no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail; first information report was got lodged on 12.6.2021 by Sri Indrapal Singh, who is not eyewitness account of the occurrence; it was lodged against six named and one unknown person, with accusation of giving assault, resulting death of deceased; the role of taking the deceased from his home was assigned to Sachin and Deepak and after taking to village Gopalpur, an assault was said to be made by Adesh, Dharamveer, Vinod, Ajay and many others by lathi-danda, which was said to be witnessed by Rakesh Kumar, Ramvilash and Raju i.e. witnesses of taking of deceased is from his village to village Gopalpur, has been said in first information report; but the witnesses of Gopalpur, where this occurrence has been said to taken place, is not there; no specific role of giving assault, resulting this death, against applicant is not there; the injuries are written in autopsy examination report and who caused fatal injury is not there; the witness of village Gopalpur i.e. Lata says another story, wherein, the public of village did this assault owing to illicit relation in between Lata and the deceased; co-accused Ajay @ Ajay Babu, with similar accusation, has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 16.11.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42349 of 2021, by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed with this contention that applicant is real brother of one of the accused, who took deceased from his village to village Gopalpur and Lata is the eyewitness of the occurrence; many other bail applications are also pending in this very case crime number, hence, this be connected with them and a time for filing counter affidavit be given.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed, but could not oppose this fact that the applicant is of no criminal antecedent and co-accused Ajay @ Ajay Babu, has been enlarged on bail, as above.
Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through materials placed on record as well as considering all above facts and circumstances, the bail granted to co-accused Ajay @ Ajay Babu, as above, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but, without commenting on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Aadesh @ Dinesh Kumar, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.
4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.
In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail."
3. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41311 of 2021 (Vinod Kumar Vs. State of UP) vide order dated 22.11.2021-
"Heard over bail application moved by applicant, Vinod Kumar, in Case Crime No. 82 of 2021, under Sections- 147, 302, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Chaubiya, District- Etawah.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 9.7.2021; he is of no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail; first information report was got lodged on 12.6.2021 by Sri Indrapal Singh, who is not eyewitness account of the occurrence; it was lodged against six named and one unknown person, with accusation of giving assault, resulting death of deceased; the role of taking the deceased from his home was assigned to Sachin and Deepak and after taking to village Gopalpur, an assault was said to be made by Adesh, Dharamveer, Vinod, Ajay and many others by lathi-danda, which was said to be witnessed by Rakesh Kumar, Ramvilash and Raju i.e. witnesses of taking of deceased is from his village to village Gopalpur, has been said in first information report; but the witnesses of Gopalpur, where this occurrence has been said to taken place, is not there; no specific role of giving assault, resulting this death, against applicant is not there; the injuries are written in autopsy examination report and who caused fatal injury is not there; the witness of village Gopalpur i.e. Lata says another story, wherein, the public of village did this assault owing to illicit relation in between Lata and the deceased; co-accused Ajay @ Ajay Babu, with similar accusation, has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 16.11.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42349 of 2021, by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed with this contention that applicant family member of one of the accused, who took deceased from his village to village Gopalpur and Lata is the eyewitness of the occurrence; many other bail applications are also pending in this very case crime number, hence, this be connected with them and a time for filing counter affidavit be given.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed, but could not oppose this fact that the applicant is of no criminal antecedent and co-accused Ajay @ Ajay Babu, has been enlarged on bail, as above.
Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through materials placed on record as well as considering all above facts and circumstances, the bail granted to co-accused Ajay @ Ajay Babu, as above, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but, without commenting on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Vinod Kumar, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.
4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.
In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail."
11. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that case of present applicants is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid chargesheeted accused who have already been enlarged on bail. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of the present applicants can be distinguished from that of the aforesaid chargesheeted accused who have already been enlarged on bail. It is thus urged that for the facts and reasons mentioned in the bail orders 16.11.2021 and 22.11.2021 respectively, applicants are also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
12. Mr. Prakash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, Sachin contends that though the applicant, Sachin is a named and a chargesheeted accused but he is innocent. Allegations made in the FIR that deceased was last seen in the company of applicants is belied by the statements of Lata wife of Narendra. Copy of the said statement is on record at page-17 of the paperbook. He has also referred to the site plan and spot inspection report on the basis thereof he submits that prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is prima facie false.
13. Mr. Akash Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant, Dharmveer @ Bablu contends that applicant, Dharmveer @ Bablu is also a named as well as a chargesheeted accused but he is innocent. Applicant has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. The theory of last seen is not attracted against the applicant, Dharmveer @ Bablu. As such, case of present applicant is on better footing than aforementioned three chargesheeted accused who have already been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that applicant, Dharmveer @ Bablu has one criminal history of one case being Case Crime No.62 of 2020, under Sections 452, 32, 504, 506, 323 IPC, Police Station Chaubia, District Etawah. The same has been explained in paragraph-14 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application of the applicant, Dharmveer @ Bablu.
14. It is then contended that applicants are in jail since 09.07.2021 and 13.06.2021. As such, they have undergone more than 8/9 months of incarceration. In case, applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.
15. Per contra, the learned AGA for State and the learned counsel for the first informant have opposed these applications for bail. Learned AGA contends that present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and, therefore, the same has to be considered in the light of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court for deciding a case based on circumstantial evidence in Sarad Birdhi Chand Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622. On the basis of above learned AGA contends that the parameters laid down in aforementioned judgment are squarely satisfied in the present case. There is a complete chain of event. The motive behind the occurrence is explicit from FIR itself that the named accused, Sachin and Deepak wanted to settle their accounts with the deceased. The deceased was last seen in the company of named accused, Deepak and Sachin. This itself is an incriminating circumstance and, therefore, the burden shifts upon the applicants to explain their innocence. The prosecution case cannot be doubted simply on the basis of solitary witness relied upon by the learned counsel for applicants namely, Lata and the site plan. They, therefore, submit that applicant, Sachin does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, they could not dispute the factual and legal submission urged by learned counsel for applicant, Dharmveer @ Bablu in support of his bail application.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned AGA for State, the learned counsel for first informant and upon consideration of evidence on record, complicity of applicant/accused, accusation made this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant, Sachin on bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant, Sachin stands rejected. However, for the facts and reasons noted above, the applicant, Dharmveer @ Bablu has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant, Dharmveer @ Bablu is allowed.
17. Let the applicant, Dharmveer @ Bablu involved in aforesaid case crime number 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.
(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
18. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send his to prison.
Order Date :- 8.4.2022 "
5. Learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that no new ground has been raised by learned counsel for applicant in second bail application. Resultantly, second bail application of applicant is mosconceived and the same is liable to be rejected.
6. When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the objection raised by learned A.G.A.
7. In view of above, second bail application of applicant fails and is liable to be rejected.
8. The second bail applicant of applicant is accordingly rejected."
6. Learned counsel for applicant contends that this Court, while rejecting the first bail application of applicant, has recorded a finding that the deceased was last seen in the company of applicant-Sachin and co-accused Deeapk. However, co-accused Deepak, who was declared a juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 924 of 2022 (XX (Minor) VS. State of U.P. and Another). On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that since the role of applicant, revisionist and aforementioned co-accused was segregated by this Court from other at the time of considering the first bail application of applicant and the said co-accused has been declared to be juvenile, has been enlarged on bail, therefore, on the ground of parity, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.
7. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that all other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail.
8. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 11.07.2021. As such, he has undergone more than 6 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and as per the material, which has emerged on record, an inference regarding the guilt of accused-applicant can be definitely drawn. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. submits that no new, good or sufficient ground has yet emerged so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that present second repeat application for bail filed by applicant is, therefore, liable to be rejected by this Court.
10. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused yet the Court finds that the applicant is in jail since 11.07.2021, as such, he has undergne 3 years of incarceration, in spite of the fact that a period of more than 3 years has rolled by, the trial of applicant has not yet concluded, in the police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., there are as many as 15 prosecution witnesses nominated, up to this stage, only one prosecution witness i.e. PW-1 (first informant) has deposed before Court below, the bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court simply on the ground that the deceased was last seen in the company of applicant and another co-accused, no conviction of an accused can be based on the basis of last seen vide Jaswant Gir Vs. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 438 and Jabir Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 32, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, the learned A.G.A. with reference to the record could not point out any such distinguishing feature in the case of present applicant so as to distinguish the case of present applicant from other named and charge sheeted but bailed out co-accused so as to deny bail to applicant, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out from the record any such incriminating circumstance necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present IInd repeat application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
11. Accordingly, this IInd repeat application for bail is allowed.
12. Let the applicant-Sachin, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, 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 THE HIM/HER 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.
13. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Vinay