Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44670 of 2021 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Manoj Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 5 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. and Sections 66/66C/66D I.T. Act, registered at P.S. Cyber Crime, District Gorakhpur.
The prosecution case as per the First Information Report lodged on 02.11.2020 at about 15:12 hours by Lalman under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C. and Section 66C I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008, against unknown person, is that he has a bank account in Baroda U.P. Bank, Jaitpur Branch. His land was acquired and he was given compensation of Rs.9,80,000/- which was kept by him in the said bank account for the purpose of purchase of another land. He came to know that his forged thumb impression has been used and money from his bank account has been withdrawn from 03.4.2020 to 05.8.2020. He has not given his thumb impression to anyone or anywhere for withdrawal of the said amount.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Subsequently, his name surfaces in the present matter in the statement of co-accused Lalla Singh given to the police which is inadmissible evidence. Further it is argued that co-accused namely Ajay Kumar Nishad, Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Upendra Singh @ Indal Singh, Narendra Ranjan, Sudhir Kumar Paswan, Jay Shanker Yadav, Narendra Ranjan, Sudhir Kumar Paswan, Upendra Singh @ Indal Singh, Jay Shanker Prasad and Krishna Nandan Pandey have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide order dated 22.6.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19747 of 2021( Ajay Kumar Nishad Vs. State of U.P.), order dated 29.7.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18242 of 2021( Jitendra Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P.), order dated 24.6.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17459 of 2021( Upendra Singh@Indal Singh Vs. State of U.P.), order dated 22.3.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14957 of 2021( Narendra Ranjan Vs. State of U.P.), order dated 18.3.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12896 of 2021( Sudhir Kumar Paswan Vs. State of U.P.), order dated 25.3.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11386 of 2021( Jay Shanker Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), order dated 17.3.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10700 of 2021( Narendra Ranjan Vs. State of U.P.), order dated 17.2.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8884 of 2021( Sudhir Kumar Paswan Vs. State of U.P.), order dated 15.3.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8623 of 2021( Upendra Singh@Indal Singh Vs. State of U.P.), order dated 8.2.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7959 of 2021(Jay Shanker Prasad Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 10.2.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9011 of 2021(Krishna Nandan Pandey Vs. State of U.P.) respectively, copies of which have been collectively annexed as annexure no. 3 to the affidavit in support of bail application.
It is argued that there is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. It is further argued that previously the applicant was granted anticipatory bail under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C. and Section 66C I.T. Act vide order dated 17.2.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2980 of 2021(Manoj Kumar Yadav and another Vs. State of U.P.), till 22.3.2021, copy of which has been annexed as annexure no. 8 to the affidavit. Subsequently in the matter Sections 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Sections 66, 66D I.T. Act were added and then the applicant was arrested. Subsequently, the said anticipatory bail application was dismissed for non- prosecution as the learned counsel could not appear in the Court vide order dated 8.4.2021.
Subsequently, the applicant has filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 11493 of 2021, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to surrender and apply for regular bail vide order dated 10.6.2021. It is argued that case of the applicant is identical to that of the said co-accused who have been granted bail and the case is of parity. It is further argued that the applicant is shown to be involved in one other case being Case Crime No. 994 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. and 66/66C and 66D I.T. Act, P.S.- Ramgarh Tall, District Gorakhpur, in which he has been released on bail vide order dated 17.12.2020 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 47849 of 2020, copy of which is annexure no. 2 to the affidavit. The disclosure and explanation for the same is given in para-27 of the affidavit.
It is argued that the applicant is shown to be involved in another case being Case Crime No. 6 of 2020, in which his bail application is pending before this Court. Para-14 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted by the police and there are no chances of the applicant tempering with the evidence or not co- operating in the trial. The applicant is in jail since 31.8.2021.
Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is involved in the present case. His implication is based on the confessional statement of the co- accused.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. His implication in the present matter is on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Lalla Singh given to the police.There is no recovery from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. Identically placed co-accused have been granted bail.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Manoj Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (out of which one surety should be the family member of the applicant and other surety should be a local person) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.
(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
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.
The bail application is allowed.
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 :- 27.10.2021/Naresh Digitally signed by Justice Samit Gopal Date: 2021.10.27 17:35:47 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad