The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a man, who was accused of throwing objectionable meat at Eidgah in Ayodhya.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal passed this order, while hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application filed by Susheel Kumar.
The applicant sought bail under Sections 295, 295-A, 120-B, 34 of IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya, during the pendency of trial.
As per the prosecution, some unknown persons are said to have thrown objectionable meat at Eidgah, along with some objectionable papers on April 27, 2022.
The Counsel for the applicant stated that he was absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and victimise him.
In all, seven FIRs have been lodged against the applicant and other accused, pertaining to the same kind of offence within two days.
The Counsel further stated that the applicant was not named in the FIR, but has been shown to have been arrested from the spot later on. As per the allegations in the FIR, the matter was triable by the Magistrate and the maximum punishment was three years.
The applicant has been languishing in jail since May 4, 2022. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail, added the Counsel.
The Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the bail application.
“Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered that,
Let the applicant- Susheel Kumar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties are verified.
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 CrPC, 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, 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 CrPC.
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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.