Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33715 of 2019 Applicant :- Gajendra Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Private Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of informant and has filed vakalatnama and the same is taken on record.
Sri Vinay Saran, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned private complainant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 0414 of 2019, under Sections 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, Police Station Medical College, District Meerut during the pendency of trial.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-aplicant has been wrongly shown to be a Clerk, although he is peon in the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and for substantiating this argument he has drawn attention of the court to the page 67 of the paper book which contains suspension order of the accused. It is further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated. No such demand was ever made as is alleged in the F.I.R.. The recovery is doubtful as the said amount of Rs. 1,000/- which is shown to have been recovered from the accused, is recovered from the drawer. The entire proceedings have been conducted at the P.S. and there is no public witness. He has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 17.6.2019.
Learned private counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and has argued that a duplicate mark- sheet was requested to be issued by the accused-applicant for which he demanded Rs. 1,000/- by way of bribe and instead of giving the said bribe he had chosen to get him trapped and accordingly, trap proceedings were laid and the said amount of Rs. 1,000/- has been recovered from the accused, hence bail should be rejected.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of bail could not controvert the aforesaid fact..
In view of above arguments, looking to the fact, taking into consideration the quantum of punishment, nature of offence and period of detention, without expressing any opinion on the merits, this case is found to be a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Gajendra Prasad involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 A.P. Pandey