Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39563 of 2018 Applicant :- Laxman Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akshat Sinha,Yogesh Kumar Sinha
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Counter affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the complainant which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant states that he does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit in reply of the same.
The first bail application was rejected as not pressed with liberty to file afresh by Hon'ble R.N. Kakkar, J. (as he then was) vide order dated 05.07.2018. Hence, this is second bail application.
Heard Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant happens to be so-called father in law of co-accused Sonu Mishra as one of his daughter was to be married to Sonu Mishra, the main culprit of the crime in question and because of the proposed relationship between him and co-accused Sonu Mishra, the applicant has been implicated in the present case along with his other unmarried daughter Renu Sharma. It is further stated that co-accused Vikas Kumar has been granted bail by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 802 of 2017 vide order dated 11.05.2017. It is further stated that Rs. 8,00,000/- have been transferred in the account of the applicant and co-accused Sonu Mishra. The applicant is aged about 65 years and is also suffering from old age ailments. He is in jail since 28.11.2016 and till date, statement of only PW1 has been recorded by the trial court.
Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the offence in question has been committed by the applicant in collusion with his family members including co-accused Sonu Mishra, the main accused and Vikas Kumar who has been granted bail for offence u/s. 420 IPC against which, an application for cancellation of bail has been moved and notice has been served to him. But, he could not dispute the fact that the applicant is aged about 65 years and is also suffering from old age ailments.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant Laxman Sharma involved in Case Crime No. 437 of 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(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.
The case of the applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Sonu Mishra who is the main accused and Accountant of the complainant.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Madhurima