Girraj vs State Of U.P.

Vivek Kumar Singh, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. There is delay in lodging of the First Information Report in this case. It is next submitted that there is no cogent and credential evidence against the applicant which may show involvement of the applicant in the present case. There is no independent reliable eye witness of the alleged incident. The applicant has no motive to commit the alleged offence. There are contradictions in oral and medical testimony. From perusal of the statement of the complainant (copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the Rejoinder Affidavit filed in this case) it reveals that she has stated that incident is of night and only allegation against the applicant is of pushing the deceased. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant is in jail since 12.11.2021 and undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant/complainant have vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant without disputing the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that in case applicant is released on bail he will misuse the liberty of bail.

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

Let applicant- Girraj, be released on bail arising out of Case Crime No. 510 of 2021, under Sections - 304, 504 IPC, Police Station- Chhatari, District- Bulandshahr, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- :-

(i) 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.

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

(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. 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.

(iv) 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.

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 trial court concerned is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six month from the date of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case