Court No. - 89
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15004 of 2021 Applicant :- Rahis Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Pathak,Arvind Kumar Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sanjay Pathak , learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2020, under section 398 IPC, P.S. Banna Devi , District Aligagrh during pendency of trial.
Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 06.01.2020, a prompt F.I.R. dated 06.01.2020 was lodged by first informant Anil Kumar and was registered as Case Crime No. 11 of 2020, under section 398 IPC, P.S. Banna Devi, District Aligagrh. In the aforesaid F.I.R. an unknown person has been nominated as solitary accused.
According to prosecution story as unfolded in FIR, it is alleged that five unknown persons entered the house of first informant with intention of committing loot/robbery. The police arrived on the spot and arrested the persons who had entered the house of first informant.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in above mentioned Case Crime Number. Applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Applicant is in jail since 24.01.2020 as such he has been under incarceration for more than one year and two months. It is also contended that co-accused Anees Ahmed and Ayyub have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. Copy of their bail orders are on record as Annexure-9 of the affidavit. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of co-accused Anees Ahmed and Ayyub. For the aforesaid facts and reasons recorded in the said order of co-accused, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Moreover applicant is laible to be enlarged on bail on ground of parity.
There is no possibility of applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the state and upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, claim of parity, evidence, complicity of the accused and larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and dictum of Apex Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Rahis, involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties 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 :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 7.4.2021 Ashish Pd.