Guddu vs State of U.P.

Jayashree Tiwari, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the accused applicant and the learned AGA and perused the record.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused applicant that accused was also on bail in this case. He submitted that he had left the Station for earning bread and as a result of which he could not either attend the Court or inform the Court regarding his nonappearance.

The conduct of the accused applicant though appears to be of sheer negligence but he was concerned with earning for bread. I think there was no intentional or deliberate abstained from appearing in the Court.

Without going into merits of the case at this stage, I think it expedient that the accused applicant be enlarged on bail.

Let accused applicant Guddu involved in Case Crime No. 625 of 1993, Criminal Case No. 968 of 1994 under sections 324, 504, 506 IPC, police station Kotwali Etawah, District Etawah be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/ and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned, with following conditions:

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

The applicant shall not absent himself from appearing in the Court on the date fixed without prior permission of the Court in future.