Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA, for the State and perused the material brought on record.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to presumption. It is next contended that the applicant has neither made any call to the Addl. Director, JTRI, Lucknow nor the alleged mobile used for making call belongs to applicant. The voice of the applicant also does not match with the recorded voice. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. The applicant has no concern with the present case. It is next contended that the ingredients of offences are absent and entire prosecution story is based on false and frivolous allegations. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that applicant has no previous criminal history and there is also no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant is in jail since 23.08.2019 and undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant without disputing the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that in case applicant is released on bail he will misuse the liberty of bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, and that it appears that there is no early likelihood of conclusion of the trial and also considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant- Satya Dev Kumar (in FIR Satya Dev Kumar Sahni @ Amresh Kumar Saran @ Painter Babu), be released on bail in Case Crime No.960 of 2019, under Sections - 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 507, 384 and 120B IPC, Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
1. The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.
3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
This bail application is accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 11.1.2021 ssm