Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1186 of 2020 Appellant :- Pankaj Rajbhar @ Pankaj Prasad Bhardwaj Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vishal Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 13.02.2020 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, in Case Crime No.95 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1) Da, Dha SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S.
Saidpur, District Ghazipur.
Contention, in brief, is that the applicant has not cheated anybody. The applicant arranged departure of the informant from India to Dubai on the tourist visa for which the applicant cannot be said to have committed any fraudulent act. Allegation is that the informant wanted commercial visa instead he was given tourist visa for which the applicant obtained Rs.1,20,000/-, whereas, no such money was ever received by the applicant. However, the applicant shall pay back Rs.1,20,000/- to the informant's side under protest within a period of one month from the date of his release, if he is admitted to bail. There is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant is languishing in jail since 13.02.2020.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.
Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application of the appellant.
Thus, in view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of accused, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.02.2020, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant Pankaj Rajbhar @ Pankaj Prasad Bhardwaj involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that he will pay back Rs.1,20,000/- to the informant's side within a period of one month from the date of his release.
However, it is made clear that if the amount in question is not paid back by the applicant within one month from the date of his release, then the informant/victim shall be free to move an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur with a prayer to cancel the bail and upon ascertaining the real facts regarding non payment, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur shall cancel the bail of the applicant issuing non-bailable warrant and send him to jail.
Order Date :- 29.10.2021 rkg