Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36086 of 2018 Applicant :- Manoj Goyal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Santosh Prad Rai, learned counsel appearing for the informant.
The allegation in the first information report is that the applicant threatened the informant when he went from Ghaziabad to Mathura for doing pairvi of his case.
The argument is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Earlier the first information report dated 17.2.2017 was lodged against him under Section 15/16 of Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Section 3/4 Explosive Substances Act and Sections 379, 427, IPC wherein he has been enlarged on bail on 4.5.2018. Thereafter detention order dated 21.8.2017 was issued against him, which has already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 23.5.2018 in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.50329 of 2017. He has also been enlarged on bail after implication in FIR dated 4.9.2017 under the Gangsters Act, FIR dated 8.6.2018 under Section 341, 506, IPC, FIR dated 7.7.2018, under Section 379, 420, IPC and FIR dated 10.8.2017, under Sections 147, 148, 333, 353, 120-B, 307, 506, IPC, Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. In none of the first information reports the applicant is stated to have been named. The applicant is in jail since 25.3.2017 and has no other criminal history.
On the other hand learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Manoj Goyal involved in Case Crime No.257 of 2018, under Sections 387, 120B, 341, 506, I.P.C, Police Station Refinery, District Mathura 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Order Date :- 24.9.2018 T. Sinha