Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36328 of 2017 Applicant :- Jagat Narayan Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
This is the fourth bail application after rejection of First Bail Application No.30174 of 2010 vide order dated 18.5.2012, Second Bail Application No.3875 of 2013 vide order dated 14.5.2013 and Third Bail Application No.5564 of 2014 vide order dated 22.9.2016.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of co-accused Mahesh Ji Baranwal, who has been granted bail vide order dated 7.7.2010 by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Varanasi at Anneuxre-3, which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant raised strong objection and submitted that co-accused has no right or authority to oppose the bail of applicant particularly when he himself has obtained bail long back in the year 2010.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and has been falsely implicated on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused Mahesh Ji Baranwal, who is named in the F.I.R.; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged by Ram Bachan Maurya, Public Relation Inspector (North), Head Post-Office, Varanasi against Mahesh Ji with the allegations that he made an unsuccessful attempt to obtain payment of forged Kisan Vikas Patras issued in the names of some other persons and upon being caught red handed, disclosed that forged Kisan Vikas Patras in the name of Meghnath, Shefali, Anand and Sarita were purchased by him from applicant, the agent of Post Office; that upon such disclosure statement, the applicant was taken into custody on 27.7.2010; that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected without considering merits vide order dated 18.5.2012 at Annexure-7 directing the trial court to conclude the trial preferably within six months; that the trial could not be concluded within 6 months and when the applicant again approached this Court with second bail application the same was also disposed of without considering merits vide order dated 14.5.2013 at Annexure-8 with the observation that as per provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 437 Cr.P.C. if the learned Magistrate has failed to conclude the trial within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, the accused shall be released on bail upon application moved before the trial court; that the applicant then moved bail application before the trial court which was rejected by trial court vide order dated 20.8.2013 at Annexure-9; that trial is still pending after lapse of period of over 6 years from rejection of first bail application and when the applicant approached this Court through third bail application the same was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 22.9.2016 at Annexure-1; that the trial is still pending while after framing of charges trial commenced with the statement of P.W.-1 on 5.7.2011 which statement was completed only on 2.9.2014 at Annexure-6; that thereafter statement of P.W.-2 was started on 22.9.2014 page 77 under Annexure-6 of which even examination in chief has not concluded as yet after lapse of around 4 years; that during examination in chief of P.W.-2 on 13.4.2017 an application was moved by prosecution that the case property (forged Kisan Vikas Patra in question) be summoned from the Malkhana so that examination in chief may be completed; that as per copy of complete order-sheet up-to-date filed at Annexure S.A.-1 it is clear that up till now even the examination-in-chief of P.W.-2 has not completed and the case is being adjourned since last about 4 years on every date with observation that the case property has not been received from the Malkhana; that subsequently on the basis of false recovery planted on applicant and he has been falsely implicated in one more case of similar nature, case crime no.145 of 2010 by Superintendent, Post Office and apart from with in 5 more cases by co-accused Mahesh Ji or his friends or family members; that the applicant is not a previous convict and has no previous criminal history; that the wife of applicant is seriously ill as she is suffering from breast cancer and the medical reports of the wife of applicant have been filed as S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 18.5.2018; that the case is triable by Magistrate and applicant is languishing in jail since 27.7.2010 i.e. more than 8 years for no fault of him while the co-accused from whom the recovery was made and on whose disclosure statement applicant has been implicated, has been granted bail vide order dated 7.7.2010 by the trial court; that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. and Sri Praveen Kumar Singh vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the applicant is a master-mind and being agent of Post Office sold the forged Kisan Vikas Patras to various persons which were missing from Nasik Government Press.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, grant of bail to co-accused as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Jagat Narayan Mishra be released on bail in Case Crime No.131 of 2010, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Varanasi, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 31.8.2018 Kpy