Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35867 of 2021 Applicant :- Muralitharan Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Bhushan,Hemendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Tanisha Jahangir Monir
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.0147 of 2021, under sections 420, 406, 411, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, police station Bannadevi, district Aligarh.
It is contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per FIR version, co-accused Manoj Kannan transferred 7,50,000/- U.S. dollars from the Green Mint Company PTE, Limited, Singapore in the account of applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the applicant is cousin brother of co-accused Manoj Kannan. It is next submitted that co-accused Manoj Kannan has filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 5229 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Apex Court, in which the further proceedings of case has been stayed vide order dated 26.07.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that similarly placed co-accused Ramasamy has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.10.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35772 of 2021, therefore the applicant should be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 09.07.2021 and has no criminal history.
I have perused the bail order of co accused and find that the role assigned to the present applicant is almost similar to that of co accused person, who has already been enlarged on bail by this court.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. opposed the application for bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant- Muralitharan, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) 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.
(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 IPC.
(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., 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 IPC.
(iv) 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.
(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.
In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
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 :- 20.12.2021 Sazia