The Single Judge allowed bail to the applicant in a murder case. The court noted lack of recovery and evidence of complicity but imposed strict conditions regarding court attendance to prevent misuse of liberty.
Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions of appearance and no adjournments.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23182 of 2018
Applicant :- Pappu Gurjar Opposite Party :- State Of Up Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Vipin Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri M.P.S. Gaur, 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 though the applicant is named in the FIR along with co-accused Monu but there is only evidence of last seen against the applicant, moreover allegation was made against co-accused Monu for causing injury by fire-arm, who was arrested. No recovery of any incriminating article has been made from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing out. The applicant is in jail since 2.4.2018.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that no recovery of any weapon has been made from the possession of 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 Gurjar, involved in Case Crime No.258 of 2018, u/s 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Fatehabad, district Agra 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(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. Order Date :- 25.6.2018 Gaurav
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for release on bail in a case charged with murder.
Whether the facts disclose abuse of process of law requiring stricter bail conditions.
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Pappu Gurjar
State Of Up
Ramesh Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
