Allahabad High Court
Vijendra Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 12 July, 2022
Author: Saral Srivastava
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10973 of 2022 Applicant :- Vijendra Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Pandey,Ayush Mishra,Prabha Shanker Mishra,Rajnish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants-accused as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants-accused in Case Crime No.88 of 2014, under Sections 302, 307 and 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Pisawa, District Aligarh with a prayer to enlarge them on bail.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants-accused that the applicants-accused are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with some ulterior motive. It is further submitted that though applicants-accused were named in the F.I.R. lodged by the son of the deceased, who is an eye witness of the incident, but police did not find any incriminating material against the applicants-accused, hence, police did not file charge sheet against the applicants-accused. It is further submitted that applicants-accused have been summoned on the application of informant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that role of applicants-accused stands on better footing than the co-accused Bachoo and Suresh @ Hulla, against whom charge sheet has been filed inasmuch as police did not find any incriminating material against the applicants-accused and did not file charge sheet against them. It is also submitted that co-accused Bachoo and Suresh @ Hulla, against whom charge sheet has been filed, have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.39150 of 2015 and 43782 of 2016 in same case crime number vide orders dated 02.08.2018 & 06.09.2018 respectively. He further submits that in view of the fact that bail has been granted to the co-accused Bachoo and Suresh @ Hulla, against whom charge sheet has been filed, therefore, applicants-accused are also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the applicants-accused have no criminal history and are languishing in jail since 09.12.2021.
Sri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail of the applicants-accused by contending that the applicants-accused are absconder. He further submits that the role of the applicants-accused are not identical to that of co-accused Bachoo and Suresh @ Hulla, who have been enlarged on bail by this Court, therefore, applicants-accused are not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of bail of the applicants-accused, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact that co-accused Bachoo and Suresh @ Hulla have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon merits of the case, and more particularly the fact that co-accused Bachoo and Suresh @ Hulla have already been enlarged on bail, I am of the opinion that the applicants-accused are also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
Let applicants-accused Vijendra Singh & Lokendra @ Loki be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime No.88 of 2014, under Sections 302, 307 and 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Pisawa, District Aligarh on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicants-accused shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicants-accused shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 an abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iii) The applicants-accused shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case, the applicants-accused misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants-accused fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicants-accused 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 applicants-accused 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 them in accordance with law.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authority concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial would will be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 12.7.2022 Sattyarth