Allahabad High Court
Nanke @ Chandrika Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 23 November, 2022
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28411 of 2022 Applicant :- Nanke @ Chandrika Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shive Datta Yadav,Harish Kumar Yadav,Mahendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application filed on behalf of the applicant Nanke @ Chandrika Prasad seeking his bail in connection with Case Crime No. 152 of 2012 (S.T. No.39 of 2013), under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC, Police Station Holagarh, District Allahabad.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that earlier the applicant was granted bail vide order dated 06.03.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3866 of 2013 (Nanke alias Chandrika Prasad vs. State of U.P.). It is further submitted that under misconception and as having been informed by counsel representing the appellant before the court below that the case is over, he did not attend the proceedings and was not aware that a non-bailable warrant was issued against him. It is submitted that observation of the court below is that the applicant is absconding for last 2-3 years but most of the aforesaid period is covered by Covid-19 pandemic. Submission, therefore, is that no deliberate omission is on the part of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the proceedings before the court below.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that after non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicant on 16.05.2015 he is not cooperating with the trial and therefore, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Nanke @ Chandrika Prasad, who is involved in aforementioned Case Crime 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 subject to condition that in case the applicant does not appear before the court on 3 consecutive dates, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant as well as subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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 COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) 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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT 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 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 HIM 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
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 :- 23.11.2022 Nitendra