Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11623 of 2021 Applicant :- Ramashankar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Vinai Shanker Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Singh,Deepak Kashinath Dubey
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for informant as well as Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
This bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.52 of 2020 under sections 406, 419, 420, 120B, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Mariyahu, District Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial.
As per FIR which has been lodged by Anil Kumar Dubey, the prosecution case is that a sum of Rs. 61.00 lacs were taken by the accused-applicant on the pretext that he would provide job to his daughter-in-law and some land was also promised to be made available. The other co-accused named in the FIR were also part of this offence as they are involved in the conspiracy and had facilitated in transferring of money in the account of the accused. When the amunt was being demanded back, they started avoiding to make the payment. In the same FIR, one Bhrigu Nath has also made allegation that for providing job to his sons and a daughter in Railway Department and in Merchant Navy, a sum of Rs.20,80,000/- were taken by the accused- applicant but the job was not provided and money was also not returned.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has drawn attention to an agreement which was entered into between the applicant and the father of the informant Kailash Nath Dubey regarding purchase of land wherein six months period was stipulated, within which execution of the sale deed was to be done but the sale deed could not be executed because of non-payment from the side of the informant and has also drawn attention to an agreement between one Pushpa Srivastava and wife of Kailash Nath Dueby and mother of the first informant, which is annexed at pages 27 and 28 of the paper book which also pertains to purchase of some land. It is argued that the informant side did not provide the money, hence sale deed could not be executed. It is further argued that the applicant did not have status to provide any job as he is an agriculturist/ farmer and therefore, he was not in a position to provide job. It is further argued that he has criminal history of one case which has been explained in paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the supplementary affidavit, which has been filed today, wherein it is stated that after investigation no case was found made out against the accused though charge- sheet has been submitted.The applicant is not involved in any other criminal case except the above one case. The applicant is absolutely innocent and is languishing in jail since 01.01.2021. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and the learned counsel for the informant has drawn attention to pages 31 to 36 of the paper book, which are false appointment letters provided by the accused-applicant and has also drawn attention to the money transaction made by the other complainant Bhrigu Nath Gaur, who credited an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 29.4.2019 in the account of the applicant and attention is also drawn to page- 46 of the paper book which too shows payment through cheque for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the accused-applicant.
In the light of the aforesaid arguments, looking to the fact that there appears to be some dispute between two sides relating to money as some transactions were made pertaining to sale of land and also looking to the status of the applicant, it does not appear that he was in a position to provide job, taking into consideration the nature of offence, quantum of punishment, there are no chances of accused fleeing from justice and period of detention in jail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is found to be a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Ramashankar Singh involved in aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :-
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 :- 6.4.2021 AU