Court No. - 89
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54 of 2021 Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Tripathi I Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Tripathi-I, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
2. This bail application has been filed by applicant Rahul seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.1277 of 2020 under Sections 457, 380, 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad during pendency of trial in the above mentioned case crime number.
3. Perusal of record shows that in respect of theft which occurred on 11.9.2020, Smt. Sunita Devi lodged a delayed first information report dated 13.9.2020 which was registered as Case Crime No.1277 of 2020 under Sections 457, 380, 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R., applicant Rahul has been nominated as named accused whereas four other unknown persons have also been nominated as accused.
4. According to the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R., it is alleged that applicant Rahul is neighbour of first informant. Both were having strained relations. It is also alleged that in the absence of first informant, applicant Rahul alongwith his associates committed theft of certain goods kept in the house of the first informant.
5. Subsequent to the aforesaid F.I.R. dated 13.9.2020, recovery has also taken place.
6. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent and has been falsely been implicated in the above mentioned case crime number. The relationship in between applicant and the first informant who are neighbours is very strained and on account of aforesaid, applicant has been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. It is then contended that the recovery is implanted and there is no independent witness of alleged recovery. Applicant has no criminal antecedents. Applicant is in jail since 15.9.2020.
Applicant has no criminal history except the present one. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
8. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
9. Let the applicant- Rahul be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and 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:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, 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 THE HIM/HER 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.
10. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Anil K. Sharma