Shilendra v. State of U.P

Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37612 of 2023 Applicant :- Shilendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh,Deeksha Singh,Shivam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. Heard Mr. Akhilesh Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Ravindra seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 57 of 2023, under Section 302, 201, 504, 34 IPC Police Station-Patiyali, District Kasganj during the pendency of trial. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred from 19.2.2023 to 22.2.2023 a prompt F.I.R dated

23.2.2023 was lodged by first informant Anita and was registered as Case Crime No. 57 of 2023, under Section 302, 201, 504, 34 IPC Police Staiton-Patiyali, District Kasganj. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons namely, Arjun, Shilendra and Pujari @ Pramod Ravindra has been nominated as named accused. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submits that two of the named accused Arjun and Pujari @ Pramod @ Pradeep have already been enlarged on bail by this court. The details of their bail orders are as under:

(i) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39594 of 2023 (Arjun Vs. State of U.P.), dated 27.9.2023

(ii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31328 of 2023 (Pujari @ Pradeep Vs. State of U.P.), dated 18.9.2023 On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant contends that case of present applicant is similar and identical to that aforesaid co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be so distinguished from aforesaid co-accused so as to deny him bail. He, therefore, contends that in view of above and for the facts and reasons mentioned in the above orders, applicants are also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 2.3.2023. As such, he has undergone more than six months of incarceration. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record at this stage. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that similarly situate and circumstanced, named as well as charge-sheeted co-accused, inasmuch as the charge-sheet has already been submitted on

30.4.2023, have already been enlarged on bail, there is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be so distinguished from aforesaid co-accused so as to deny him bail, clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the Police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, yet inspite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, therefore irrespective of the objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Shilendra be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, 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 THE HIM/HER 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. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. Order Date :- 13.10.2023 Arshad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad