Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35576 of 2018 Applicant :- Ramakant Dubey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava,Anoop Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui and Shri Deepak Kumar, learned counsels for the informant.
The applicant is not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant has surfaced in the statement of Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi, who has himself stated that he was also working with co-accused, Vinod B. Lal. He has alleged that in the United Commercial Bank he has seen the applicant many times presenting the cheques of the company before the bank for encashment. The money embezzled has been utilized by Vinod B. Lal for purchasing new car and for other purposes mentioned in the statement.
The name of the applicant has also been taken by one Dipankar Gine, who is employee of the bank and he has stated that he has seen the applicant coming to the bank for encashment of the cheques of the company.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report. He has no connection with the affairs of Diocese of Lucknow, Church of North India, as certified by the Bishop thereof by his certificate dated 14.6.2017, which clearly states that the applicant is neither related to administration nor to financial matters of the Diocese of Lucknow nor he is working as any officer or member thereof. He has further submitted that the statement of Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi is not reliable since he himself has admitted that he was also working under Vinod B. Lal, a co-accused and he has taken the name of the applicant. Regarding the statement of the bank official, statements of account have been brought on record wherein the description of the transactions with the bank and the cheques issued by the company have been mentioned. In none of the transaction name of the applicant finds place as bearer of any cheques issued by the company for encashment. The applicant is in jail since 24.7.2018.
Per contra Shri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui and Shri Deepak Kumar, learned counsels for the informant have vehemently opposed this bail application on the ground that the applicant has left no stone unturned to avoid surrender before the court below and he has approached this Court by way of different proceedings to avert his appearance before the court and finally after he could not get any relief even from the Apex Court, he has surrendered before the court. He has also threatened the first informant and a complaint in this regard has been made to the police station Hazratganj, Lucknow. It has further been submitted that the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph 58 of the affidavit, filed in support of the bail application. The criminal history of the applicant has not been correctly shown and some of the averment are not correct.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Ramakant Dubey involved in Case Crime No.845 of 2014, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, I.P.C, Police Station Civil Lines, District Allahabad 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.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Order Date :- 20.9.2018 T. Sinha