Allahabad High Court
M.M.Idrish Ali (Second Bail) vs U.O.I. Thru Dy.Commissioner ... on 4 March, 2020
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- BAIL No. - 9029 of 2019 Applicant :- M.M.Idrish Ali (Second Bail) Opposite Party :- U.O.I. Thru Dy.Commissioner Customs,Kendriya Bhawan,Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Pradyumn Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Digvijay Nath Dubey Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in R/o Case No.7 of 2018-19, under Sections 135(1)(a)(i)(a) rad with Sections 104, 110, 111, 119, 123 Customs Act, 1962, Police Station Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow.
As per the prosecution case, around 4 Kg. smuggled gold was recovered from the accused-applicant, who was travelling from Alipur Dwar (West Bengal) to Delhi for the purposes of delivering the smuggled gold to its destination.
This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.3.2019. However, while rejecting the application, it was directed that the trial should be concluded expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months. Report form the trial court was called for by this Court and according to the report dated 29.2.2020, till date no witness has been examined and the trial has not progressed at all. The accused-applicant is in jail since 11.11.2018 without trial.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer of bail, but not disputed the aforesaid facts.
Considering the fact that the trial has not progressed at all and none of the witnesses has been examined despite the direction given by this Court to conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months, it would be appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.
Let applicant M.M. Idrish Ali be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.5 Lakhs and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-
(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 :- 4.3.2020 Rao/-