Heard Sri Utkarsh Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.0060 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 336, 353, 395, 307, 342, 427, 504 171H, 188 and 269 I.P.C., Section 3 Epidemic Disease Act, 1897, Section 51 of Disaster Management Act, 2005, Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Moosanagar, District Kanpur Dehat during the pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. As per F.I.R. the general allegation regarding creating hindrance, unlawful assembly and an attempt to loot two ballot boxes has been levelled against the applicant and 18 other accused persons. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that neither any public property or vehicle has been damaged nor any ballot box has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is next submitted that the co-accused, Bhanwati Sonkar, whose role is identical to that of the applicant has already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 10.08.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24274 of 2021, hence, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Lastly it is contended that the applicant is in jail since 27.04.2021 having no previous criminal history as stated in paragraph no.61 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, 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 the applicant, Shree Pal, who is involved in aforesaid 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
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 the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall 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.
In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 25.8.2021 S.P.