The case is called out.
Learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satendra Kumar Singh is not present, however, on his behalf Sri Atul Verma, Advocate appears and disclosing that he had instructions to press the bail. Brief holder of learned A.G.A. Sri Umesh Singh for the State is present and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.110 of 2019, under Sections 420, 411 I.P.C. and Section 66-D I.T. Act, Police Station - Tulsipur District - Balrampur.
The occasion of present bail application arisen on rejection of bail plea of applicant by Sessions Judge, Balrampur vide order dated 23.7.2019.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case and is languishing in jail since 21.6.2019 in the aforesaid offences.
He further submitted that the incident is reported to be on 11.4.2019 at about 12.19 p.m. but the FIR is lodged belatedly after two months i.e. 20.6.2019 under Section 66-D I.T. Act. Learned counsel for the bail applicant further submits that the incident is reported by the informant disclosing that a person standing behind him, when his ATM card did not come out of the ATM machine, on the pretext of helping the informant in getting the ATM Card back from the ATM machine that person tried to pull out the ATM card and succeed but after his departure from the spot, he found that from his account Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2,000/- are withdrawn by him. After some days when he saw that person on another ATM, he immediately informed the police and he was taken into custody. On his disclosure several ATM cards were recovered from him which he was not able to claim or explain how he possessed them. He admitted his involvement in doing such fraud.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant in the context of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, argued that recovery is shown falsely and by way of fabrication as after two months of the incident when the bail applicant was arrested by the police on his identification otherwise there is no link of the accused applicant with the offences complaint of to have been committed by him. Learned counsel further submits on his disclosure that co-accused has already been given bail by the Sessions Court.
Learned A.G.A submits that on the basis of the co-accused who was granted bail by the Sessions Judge, present bail applicant cannot claims parity in this Court, moreover, to role of the co-accused was different and nothing was recovered from his possession which incriminate him. The present bail applicant is prima facie and sufficiently involved in commission of offence and incriminating material have been recovered against him.
Learned A.G.A further submits that there is a criminal history of accused applicant of committing similar offences of like nature in previous also.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the bail applicant submits that no criminal history is shown wherein conviction is made by the court and the case as disclosed by learned A.G.A. in his argument has already been shown in his affidavit and there is no connection and link with the criminal case, wherein bail is sought by learned counsel for the bail applicant having any particular and specific role.
Learned counsel further submits that the offences is triable by Magistrate and maximum punishment with seven years and three years and life imprisonment in these sections of the I.P.C. He further submits that he is ready to face the trial, therefore, a fair opportunity to participate in the trial should be given to him, so that he may be able to put his defence before the concerned court against the prosecution and there is no possibility of fleeing away from judicial process.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The case against the accused is triable by Magistrate. Accused-applicant is languishing in jail since 21.6.2019. I find force in the submissions of learned counsel for the bail applicant. Therefore without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicant (Govind Kumar Shilpkar) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional 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.
Order Date :- 29.8.2019 Gaurav/-