Court No. - 89
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 136 of 2021 Applicant :- Anil Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sharan Tripathi,Narendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Shiv Sharan Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
2. This bail application has been filed by applicant Anil Yadav seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.571 of 2018 under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., Police Station- G.R.P., District Prayagraj (Allahabad) during pendency of trial.
3. Perusal of record shows that in respect of an incident which occurred on 2.8.2018, a prompt F.I.R. dated 2.8.2018 was lodged by S.S.I. Sudhir Kumar Pandey which was registered as Case Crime No.571 of 2018 under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., Police Station- G.R.P., District Prayagraj (Allahabad). One unknown person was nominated as accused.
4. As per prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R., it is alleged that on 2.8.2018 when informant alongwith his wife alighted from train no.19042 from Ghazipur, at Allahabad railway station some unknown persons committed theft of money bag of the wife of first informant which contained various documents.
5. Police proceeded with the matter and arrested six persons namely Banti Yadav, Narsingh Yadav, Rajan Babu, Badan Yadav, Awadhesh Yadav and Anil Yadav (applicant herein).
6. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely been implicated in above mentioned case crime number. Applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and is in jail since 2.8.2018. It is then contended that pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R., some persons were arrested and on the basis of the confessional statement of arrested persons, name of the present applicant has surfaced. Recovery alleged to have been made from the applicant does not tally with the description of the goods mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that there is no independent witness of alleged recovery. Applicant has criminal history which has been explained in paragraph 25 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.There is no possibility of the applicant 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.
7. Other five persons have already been enlarged on bail, their bail orders are on record from page 42 onwards of the paper book. It is thus submitted that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is lastly submitted that the offence under Sections 379 and 411 I.P.C. are triable by Magistrate and the maximum period of sentence that can be imposed is three years. Applicant has undergone incarceration for more than two years and five months. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
9. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, 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.
10. Let the applicant- Anil Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., 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/HER, 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 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
11. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Anil K. Sharma