Allahabad High Court
Mahendra @ Hullarh vs State Of U.P. on 22 January, 2021
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16012 of 2018 Applicant :- Mahendra @ Hullarh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Singh,C.D.Mishra,Mohammad Zakir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Jagdish,Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Mohammad Zakir, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bare Lal Bind, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.
Sri Ajay Kumar Jagdish and Sri Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsels for the first informant are not present even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Mahendra @ Hullarh seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 941 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, registered at P.S. Khurja City, District Bulandshahar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that from the pointing out of the applicant an axe has been show to be recovered but there is no evidence whatsoever to corroborate the use of the same in the present incident. It is argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness to the incident. It is argued that co-accused Harendra Singh has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 16233 of 2018 (Harendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.). It is further argued that from the pointing out of co-accused Ravindra, head of the deceased was recovered. It is further argued that co-accused Ravindra has also been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.10.2020 passed in Crl. Misc.Bail Application No. 39174 of 2018 (Ravindra Vs. State of U.P.), copy of both the orders have been provided to the Court which are taken on record. It is further argued that the other evidence as being relied by the prosecution, is the statement of co-accused Ravindra, in which, he has stated that the applicant had cut the neck of the deceased with kulhari. It is argued that the said statement is not an admissible in piece of evidence. It is further argued while placing para 19 of the affidavit in support of the bail application which has not been denied in para 16 of the counter affidavit filed by the State and also para 5 of the supplementary affidavit dated 18.01.2020 the applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 27.10.2017.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the averment that the applicant has no criminal history and also that co-accused Harendra Singh and Ravindra have been granted bail.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case for bail, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant Mahendra @ Hullarh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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.
(V) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
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 :- 22.1.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)