Allahabad High Court
Amit Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 19 September, 2019
Author: Anant Kumar
Bench: Anant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 14 Case :- BAIL No. - 9022 of 2019 Applicant :- Amit Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Chandra,Surya Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anant Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.216/2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police Station - Jagatpur, District - Raebareli.
As per version of the F.I.R. on 7.6.2019 at about 7.00 PM when the complainant and his friend Anupam Soni were standing by the side of the road, the accused persons, who were four in number came there and some hot discussion took place due to previous enmity and had opened fire, which hit on the hand of the complainant i.e. Dimpal Tiwari.
It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that as per version of the F.I.R., no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant, even when the statement of the complainant was recorded, who has not assigned specific role to the present applicant, only this much is stated that Ranjeet Singh @ Lallu and some other persons had opened fire, which hit on his hand, however, when the statement of another witness Gaya Soni was recorded, who has specifically stated that Amit Yadav had opened fire which hit in the hand of the complainant. As per injury report, lacerated would over left hand was found but dimension of wound has not been mentioned in the injury report. It is doubtful that who had opened fire upon the complainant.
Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicant (Amit Yadav) 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 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 :- 19.9.2019 S. Kumar