Pappu Vs. State Of U.P.

Allahabad High Court (Single Judge)

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION, 19189 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jun 01, 2015

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 39 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19189 of 2015 
Applicant :- Pappu 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Mishra 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. 
Sri S.K. Tripathi, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of applicant, he states that he has taken no objection certificate from Sri Sanjeev Mishra, who is earlier counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record. 
Heard Sri S.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 
It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that the applicant is the Jeth of the deceased. The husband of the deceased namely Satendra is already confined in jail. There is no specific allegation or dying-declaration of the deceased against the applicant. The wife of the applicant who is the Jethani of the deceased has already granted bail by another Bench of this Court on 30.3.2015 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10684 of 2015 and applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 9.1.2015. 
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. 
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. 
Let the applicant Pappu involved in Case Crime No.225 of 2014, u/s 498-A, 304-B IPC, and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.Sikandarpur Viashya, district Kasganj be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the 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 case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of husband of deceased namely Satendra. 
Order Date :- 1.6.2015 
Gaurav