Heard learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR was lodged against unknown persons. The name of the applicant came into light in the statement of co-accused Priyanshu Singh @ Priya Prakash Singh. The alleged recovery of LPG cylinder is false and concocted. Nothing has been recovered either from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. The alleged recovered LPG cylinder belongs to the applicant and on the date of alleged recovery, the applicant was going to refill the same. The applicant has no criminal history. There is no chance of absconding and tampering with the prosecution story. The applicant is in jail since 24.05.2021. There is no allegation with regard to non-cooperation with the investigating agency. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will appear before the trial court as and when requires and shall also abide by the conditions of bail imposed by this Court.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the alleged recovery was made from the possession of the applicant and according to the CDR report, he was present at the place of incident but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
In reply, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was not present at the place of incident. He was 20 kilometers away from the place of incident which is itself proves from the CDR report.
Without entering into the merits of the case and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the period of incarceration and also there is no reason of apprehension that he would not co-operate with the trial, his presence can not be ensured, he will not abscond, he will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and the evidence in absence of any concrete material, and also the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history, I am inclined that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Durgesh Rai @ Shubham be released on bail in Case Crime No.190 of 2021, under Sections 395, 412 IPC, Police Station Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(1) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if 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;
(2) 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;
(3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail 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.
(4) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 17.8.2021 akverma