GUDDU Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the accused applicant and the learned AGA and perused the rec­ord.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused applicant that ac­cused was also on bail in this case. He submitted that he had left the Station for earning bread and as a result of which he could not either attend the Court or inform the Court regarding his non-appearance. The conduct of the accused applicant though appears to be of sheer negligence but he was concerned with earning for bread. I think there was no intentional or deliberate abstained from appearing in the Court.

(3.) LET accused applicant Guddu in­volved in Case Crime No. 625 of 1993, Criminal Case No. 968 of 1994 under sec­tions 324, 504, 506 IPC, police station Kot-wali Etawah, District Etawah be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned, with following conditions: 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2. The applicant will not pressur­ize/intimidate the prosecution witness. 3. The applicant shall not absent himself from appearing in the Court on the date fixed without prior permission of the Court in future. Bail Granted.