Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47462 of 2018 Applicant :- Satyaveer Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Rajesh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of aggrieved party, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Satyaveer Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1005 of 2014, under Sections 420, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 7, 8 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Sadabad, District- Hathras, during pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for applicant submitted that case of the applicant is similar to the case of co-accused, Chhatrapal who has already been granted bail on 1.05.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38874 of 2017, copy of the said order is annexed at Annexure-12 to the present application. It is further submitted that it is only case of forging of revenue entries and as yet the issue has not been decided by any competent court. It is further submitted that tampering in the revenue record and the role of the different accuseds are yet to be examined by the Trial Court. It is further submitted that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. It is lastly submitted that applicant is in jail since 6.10.2018.
Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of aggrieved person has vehementally opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant has approached this Court in number of proceedings in applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and only thereafter he has been arrested and is in jail. He has further submitted that this Court has already directed that the trial may be expedited and concluded within a year by the order dated 24.10.2018, as yet the trial has not been concluded.
Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that the contention raised on behalf of Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla are correct and applicant does not deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the sentence awardable to the applicant, we are of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let the applicant Satyaveer Singh involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. one lakh with two sureties of (out of which one should be a family member) to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) 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.
(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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail 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.
(iv) 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 applicants are 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.
However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same on day to day basis strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a further period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Shubhankar