Single Judge allowed bail to the applicant in a murder case under Section 307 IPC, ordering him to furnish a personal bond and two local sureties with specific conditions regarding court appearances and non-interference.
Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties subject to specific conditions.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19933 of 2019
Applicant :- Bhura @ Inam @ Iqram
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Lalji Maurya, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant -Bhura @ Inam @ Iqram with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2019, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police StationTitavi, District-Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The F.I.R. has been lodged against Karamveer and Bhura (applicant herein) wherein it has been stated that when the police party was searching the vehicles for arresting the miscreants, two people who were coming on a motorcycle, seeing the Police, tried to flee but they fell from the motorcycle and tried to run away. When the Police party chased, those people started firing upon the Police Personnel and in self-defence the Police party also fired upon them. In the aforesaid firing, one Police personnel and the coaccused Karamveer have sustained gun shot injuries. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has not been arrested from the spot nor anything has been recovered from his possession. The applicant has not fired upon the Police personnel. No specific allegation has been made against the applicant. He has been falsely implicated by the Police due to instigation of persons who are having inimical terms with his family. As per the medical examination report of the injured, the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the coaccused, namely, Karamveer has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 29th March, 2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12406 of 2019. The case of the present applicant is on better footing to that of the co-accused Karamveer. As such the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has criminal history of ten cases but the same have satisfactorily been explained in paragraph-16 of the affidavit accompanying the present bail application.It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 9th February, 2019.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot
be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to 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.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 13.5.2019
Sushil/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant in a murder case under Section 307 IPC be released on bail subject to furnishing bond and sureties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & AnotherReferred¶11
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhura @ Inam @ Iqram
State Of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
