Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17171 of 2021 Applicant :- Kripal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar,Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.26 of 2021, under Section 307 IPC and Section 12 D.A.A. Act, 1983, Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad during pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. After the arrest of the applicants, several other cases have been imposed upon the applicants.The recovery that has been shown from the possession of the applicants is false and fabricated. There is no independent eye witness of the alleged recovery. It is next submitted that co-accused Satish has been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17106 of 2021 vide order dated 27.7.2021. The case of the applicants stands on identical footing, hence the applicants are also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicants have criminal history, which is explained in paragraph nos. 5 and 6 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicants are in jail since 11.1.2021, and if they are released on bail, there is no chance of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicants.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let the applicants, Kripal, Greesh and Balveer, who are involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicants will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
2. They will not tamper with the witnesses.
3. They 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 applicants 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 :- 12.8.2021 Sweety