Allahabad High Court
Suraj Kashyap ( Second Bail ) vs State Of U.P. on 2 November, 2020
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 28 Case :- BAIL No. - 7925 of 2020 Applicant :- Suraj Kashyap ( Second Bail ) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Karunakar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in FIR No.83 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506 and 188 IPC, Police Station Paraspur, District Gonda.
It appears that there was some dispute in respect of agricultural land. The accused-applicant got sale deed executed in his favour in respect of the said land. However, the said sale deed was cancelled by the competent court and the land was released in favour of the complainant. It is alleged that at the time of harvest of wheat crop, the accused-applicant's side reached there and they assaulted the complainant side, in which three persons have received injuries. It also appears that the accused-applicant's side have also received some injuries and an NCR was registered on their behalf. The injury report of the accused-applicant has been placed on record.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that other co-accused have been granted bail by this Court. Applicant is in jail since 1.5.2020 and there is no criminal antecedents of the accused-applicant.
On the other hand, Sri Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Shailendra Tripathi, learned AGA have opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the accused-applicant's side was aggressor and they wanted to take illegal possession of the agricultural field of the victim and they wanted to harvest the crop illegally. It is also submitted that injuries were caused to the victim by a sharp edged weapon and, therefore, bail should not be granted to the accused-applicant.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties carefully and perused the bail application.
The incident had taken place regarding possession over the agricultural field. It appears that the accused-applicant's side has lost the case.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that in future the accused-applicant's side will not do anything and not enter the agricultural field in question unless and until they have clear title.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for both sides, and without entering into the merit of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant Suraj Kashyap be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) The accused-applicant did not enter the land in question and not try to take possession without having clear title.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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 :- 2.11.2020 Rao/-