Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36557 of 2021 Applicant :- Raj Vikram Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Parmar,Sudhir Kumar Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 during the trial in Case Crime No.54 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Sector 58 Noida, District Gautam Buddhnagar.
It is contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is in jail since 26.3.2021. It is contended that the FIR has been lodged against two named persons and unknown persons. Applicant is not named in the FIR and his name came into light in the majeed statement of co accused persons namely Pankaj Khatik and Adarsh. It is further contended that the main role is assigned to co accused Pankaj Khatik and Adarsh. There is no recovery from the applicant.
It is next submitted that similarly placed co-accused Sunil in another Case Crime being Case Crime No. 54 of 2021, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41310 of 2021, therefore, applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
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 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- Raj Vikram Singh, 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 :- 22.12.2021/RavindraKSingh