Allahabad High Court
Usman (Second Bail) vs State Of U.P. on 24 September, 2020
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 9 Case :- BAIL No. - 5606 of 2020 Applicant :- Usman (Second Bail) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Pandey,Mohd. Amir Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Brijendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in FIR No. 262 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Ramkot, District Sitapur
3. It is alleged that the accused-applicant along with other eight accused assaulted the victim on 01.06.2020. The accused-applicant has been shown to have armed with Banka. From the injury report however, there is no injury caused by the weapon, Banka. Following injuries have been found on the body of the victim in his medical examination:-
"1. Lacerated wound 4.0 cm x .5 cm deep on the left side of forehead 6.0 cm above roof of the nose, bleeding present. Adv. X-ray
2. Traumatic swelling 8 cm x all around the Rt. Arm 6.0 cm above 3 wrist joint x-ray.
3. Multiple lacerated wounds in front of the Rt. Leg starting from the Rt knee hoint the smallest 10 cm x 0.5 cm and largest 2 cm x 1.0 cm all are muscle deep Adv. X-ray
4. Lacerated wound 2.0 cm x .5 cm x muscle deep on the left knee joint."
4. Head injuries have not been alleged to have been caused by the accused-applicant but it was caused by accused, Roz Ali. The accused-applicant has been assigned the role of causing injury on the leg of the victim.
5. Considering the weapon assigned to the accused-applicant, fact that injury report does not support the allegation prima facie against the accused-applicant, the accused-applicant is in jail since 05.06.2020 and, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
6. Let applicant Usman be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :-
(i) The applicant(s) shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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(s) shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant(s) misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant(s) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant(s) 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(s) 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/her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 24.9.2020 prateek