Ram Avtar Sharma and Har Vansh vs The State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and learned AGA.

The applicants were initially granted bail for the offence under Sections 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. subsequently Section 304 I.P.C. is also annointed against him. The prayer through the present application is that the trial court be directed to release the applicant on bail. The prayer is misconceived as no such direction can be given by this Court in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. More over in view of the 4th proviso added to Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. by the amending act 25 of 2005 as well as Section 437(4) Cr.P.C., it cannot be directed that the applicants should be allowed to remain on the same bail bond or on furnish fresh bail bond. It is pointed out that the bail bond or furnishing fresh bail bond is a subsequent stage after bail has been granted and for grant of bail custody is must and unless and until the person is in custody his bail can not be considered and unless his bail is considered there is no question of filing a fresh bail bond. Therefore, the prayer made by the applicants in this application is not acceptable and is rejected.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is hereby directed that if, the applicants appear and/or surrender before the court concerned and make an application for bail, their bail application shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible without unnecessary delay and if possible on the same day by the Courts below.

This order has been passed keeping in view the fact that the applicants have not misused the liberty of bail granted them earlier.

With the aforesaid direction this application is finally