Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44065 of 2020 Applicant :- Balram Sahani Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Mishra,Awadhesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record of the case.
By means of this application, the applicant, Balram Sahani, who is involved in Case Crime No. 735 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Khorabar, District- Gorakhpur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on 02.09.2018, informant Smt. Bhagwani Devi lodged the F.I.R. against 11 accused persons, namely Lobhi, Ratan, Shayamakant, Sitaram, Ramroop, Bipat, Tilesara Devi, Sonkesha Devi, Dayaram Yadav, Gama and Vinod alleging inter alia that out of which eight persons have executed a sale deed dated 25.06.2007 in favour of the informant after taking sale consideration amount of Rs. 1,77,750/- from the informant. Thereafter mutation was also done in the year 2008, but subsequently she came to know that out of eight persons three persons, namely Sitaram, Ramroop and Bipat were not the real persons, in place of them photographs of different persons have been used in the sale deed. The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The complicity of the applicant came into light in the statement of Lavkush (son of the informant) disclosing that the photograph of the applicant was pasted in the sale deed at the place of Ramroop and the amount of Rs. 1,77,750/- was given to co-accused Vinod. As such, it is admitted case of the prosecution that the applicant has not taken a single penny in the execution of the aforesaid sale deed dated 25.06.2007. It is also submitted that in fact that the applicant has not executed any sale deed, but his photograph has been used by co-accused Vinod in collusion with co-accused Lobhi. The applicant is Rajgir Mistri and was working in the house of co-accused Lobhi, therefore, taking the benefit of this situation, the co-accused while executing the sale deed dated 25.06.2007 illegally used the photograph of the applicant behind his back, whereas the applicant has nothing to do with the aforesaid transaction. Lastly, it is submitted that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from the case of other co-accused persons who are beneficiaries in the matter. The applicant has no criminal history as mentioned in para 20 of the bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.06.2020 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Balram Sahani 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 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.
(v) The applicant shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vi) The computer generated copy of this order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
Order Date :- 6.4.2021 Sunil Kr. Gupta