Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Santosh Sharma vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|07 April, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 5
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14395 of 2021 Applicant :- Santosh Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sharan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 383 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Civil Line, District Aligarh with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR has lodged on an application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It is also contended that the offence is triable by the Magistrate and as per Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. if the trial of a person accused of any non- bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs. It appears from the order-sheet that the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case was 17.11.2018. The applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Co-accused Devendra Kumar Sharma has already been enlarged on bail by order of this Court dated 11.5.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24816 of 2019. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.9.2017 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let applicant Santosh Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.
(iii) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.
(vi) In view of the fact that due to the pandemic of COVID-19, the certified copy is not being issued by the High Court, therefore, the order downloaded from the website duly certified by learned counsel for the applicant may be treated as true copy of the order and the Authority may not refuse to comply the order on the ground of non filing of certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 7.4.2021 Jaswant
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Santosh Sharma vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
07 April, 2021
Judges
  • Saral Srivastava
Advocates
  • Shiv Sharan Tripathi