Banti vs State Of U.P.

Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 240 of 2022, under Sections 323, 304, 504 IPC,Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the alleged incident is said to have been taken place on 17.7.2022. The FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged on 21.7.2022. There is delay of five days in lodging the FIR. There is no satisfactory explanation of this delay in lodging the FIR. It has further submitted that the role of catching hold of informant has been assigned to the applicant. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident. The role of causing injury to the deceased has been assigned to other co-accused. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. He has further submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 28.7.2022.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

Let the applicant Banti, 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 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 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 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 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.