Court No. - 89
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52421 of 2021 Applicant :- Mohd. Rafi Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru Ministry Of Railway Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Singh
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Sudhanshu Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Vijay Kumar Rai holding brief of Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai who appears for the opposite party.
This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the applicant being Mohd. Rafi for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 08 of 2021 under Section 4 of R.P.U.P. Act, registered at Police Station- RPF, District- Bareilly.
The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 15.11.2021.
The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the entire proceedings sought to be initiated against the applicant culminating into the rejecting the bail application of the applicant is wholly unjustified besides the fact that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as the applicant was not privity to the said offence and the applicant happens to be the owner of the plot of the land whereas the aforesaid items which were not said to have been stolen by others. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to Annexure-2 at page 17, relevant extract at page 18 being the statement so recorded of one Dinesh Prakash Lohani wherein it has been mentioned that one of the co-accused Afzaal S/o Mukhtiyar R/o Village Mathurapur, Police Station C.B. Ganj, District Bareilly, consequent his has made a statement that he has kept the aforesaid items in the plot of applicant without his knowledge. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant is the owner of the plot in question and he has no knowledge regarding the robbery of the railway properties and kept on the open field of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has further placed reliance upon the order dated 17.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40741 of 2021 (Dinesh Prakash Lohani Vs. Union of India) as well as the order dated 20.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40222 of 2021 (Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Union of India) so as to contend that co-accused not named in the F.I.R. and also in the case of the applicant, he was not named in the F.I.R. and he has been enlarged on bail. He further submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 15.10.2021. He lastly submits that if the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Countering the said submission, Sri Vijay Kumar Rai holding brief of Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the bail but he could not dispute the fact regarding the statement of Dinesh Prakash Lohani as well as the orders passed enlarging the co-accused on bail by the co- ordinate Bench in the aforenoted bail applications.
Looking into the nature of the offence, there are no chances of accused fleeing from justice and period of detention in jail, without expressing any opinion on the merits, this case is found to be a fit case for bail.
Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Mohd. Rafi involved in aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-
(i). The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii). The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii). The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(iv). 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(v). In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
(vi). Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 22.12.2021 Vikram