Allahabad High Court
Badaruddin @ Bhura vs State Of U.P. on 23 September, 2020
Author: Pritinker Diwaker
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 7 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21534 of 2020 Applicant :- Badaruddin @ Bhura Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- D.M.Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Monis Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Heard Sri D.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
This repeat bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with S.S.T. No.213 of 2019, Crime No. 158 of 2019, under Sections 395, 435, 397, 427 of I.P.C, registered at Police Station Bhoganipur, District Kanpur Dehat.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits while rejecting the first application application of the applicant, liberty was given to him to repeat his bail application before the trial judge after filing of charge sheet. He submits that now the charge sheet has been filed before the trial judge and, therefore, he be released on bail. He submits that the applicant has filed an application before the trial judge for granting him bail, but the said application has been rejected vide order dated 10.1.2020. It has been argued that the application filed by the applicant has been rejected by the trial judge, mainly on the basis of the provisions of Section 10 of U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983. However, while filing the charge sheet, no such offence has been registered against the accused persons under the provisions of the Special Act. It has been further argued that similarly placed co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10139 of 2020 (Achhey vs. State of U.P.), vide order dated 23.6.2020; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.20603 of 2020 (Raju Alias Varisul vs. State of U.P.), vide order dated 26.8.2020; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21074 of 2020 (Sarfaraz vs. State of U.P.), vide order dated 26.8.2020; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.20928 of 2020 (Jamshed vs. State of U.P.), vide order dated 26.8.2020 and in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23967 of 2020 (Jubair vs. State of U.P.), vide order dated 28.8.2020. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 23.8.2019, and due to Covid-19 Pandemic, trial may take some time in its conclusion and, therefore, the applicant be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned AGA opposes the bail application. However, he is not disputing the fact that similarly placed co-accused persons have already been released on bail by this Court. Further, he is not in a position to dispute the fact that no offence under the provisions of Special Act has been registered against any of the accused.
Considering the totality of the case, in particular, the facts that similarly placed co-accused persons have already been granted bail; that there is no progress in the trial due to Covid-19 Pandemic and that even charges have not been framed, without further commenting on merit, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant Badaruddin @ Bhura, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) 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 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 I.P.C.
(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., 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(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 expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
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.
The application is, accordingly, disposed of.
The party shall file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the representative/counsel of the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 23.9.2020 RK