Court No. - 89
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 60 of 2021 Applicant :- Devendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhaskar Bhadra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
2. This bail application has been filed by applicant Devendra seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.434 of 2020 under Section 420 I.P.C. read with Section 63/72 of Excise Act, Police Station- Fatehganj Pashchimi, District Bareilly during pendency of trial in the above mentioned case crime number.
3. Perusal of record shows that in respect of an incident which occurred on 30.10.2020, a prompt F.I.R. dated 30.10.2020 was lodged by SI Sanjay Singh, which was registered as Case Crime No.434 of 2020 under Section 420 I.P.C. read with Section 63/72 of Excise Act, Police Station- Fatehganj Pashchimi, District Bareilly. In the aforesaid F.I.R. five persons namely Manoj Kumar, Vikas, Anil, Sameer Ahmad and Devendra (applicant herein) have been nominated as named accused.
4. As per the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R., it is alleged that on 30.10.2020 police laid a trap and illicit liquor was recovered from Honda City Car bearing registration No.DL-4C-AH-6574. In all 20 cartoons of Indian made foreign liquor with place of manufacturing shown as Haryana was recovered from the aforesaid vehicle.
5. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number on account of police rivalry. There is no independent witness of alleged recovery. It is next contended that the alleged recovery is implanted. Applicant is driver of the vehicle and not the owner of the vehicle from which the alleged recovery is shown. Applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in jail since 30.10.2020. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that the applicant be enlarged on bail.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Let the applicant- Devendra 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.
9. 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