Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19604 of 2021 Applicant :- Radheyshyam Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Mishra,Abhishek Tandon,Dinesh Kumar Singh,Gaurav Dwivedi,Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi (Senior Adv.),Manu Srivastava,Prashant Vyas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saumitra Dwivedi
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prashant Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Saumitra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.327 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 IPC and section 66-D of I.T. Act, Police Station- Civil Lines, District-Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant will pay Rs.1,95,000/- to the informant through demand draft. It has been further submitted that co-accused Kapil @ Kapil Kumar Jatav has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23975 of 2021 vide order dated 29.09.2021. Thus, the case of the applicant is based on identical footing and the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. He has further submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 10.02.2021.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes 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-Radheyshyam, 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 :- 17.12.2021 SK Goswami