Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44580 of 2021 Applicant :- Dinesh Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhakar Shukla,Manoj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 347 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 352, 353, 427 IPC and Section 9, 51, 51 (1), 31, 29 of Wildlife Protection Act and Section 3/4 Prevention of Public Property and Damages Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit, during pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 18.09.2021. He is of no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of applicant's fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence, in case he is released on bail. Co-accused Heera Lal, Lal Chand, Vijay, Vinder, Deshraj, Dharmendra, Bharthari, Bachcha Lal, Mahesh, Manoj Kumar, Sikandar, Raj Kumar, Vinod Kumar, Swami Nath and Guddu @ Amarjeet have been granted bail by coordinate Bench vide order dated 26.9.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39951 of 2019, co-accused Paras, Brahma and Cheedi have also been granted bail by coordinate Bench vide order dated 18.11.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49603 of 2019, co-accused Shiv Nath has been granted bail by coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44466 of 2019. Accusation against the applicant is of same degree. Hence bail has been prayed for.
Learned AGA appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard submissions of learned counsel of both sides, considering nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let the applicant- Dinesh Sharma involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.
3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
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.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 Noman