Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6351 of 2019 Applicant :- Shyam Balak Ram Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rohan Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated in F.I.R. lodged upon deliberations with allegations that certain persons have lost their lives by consuming noxious country made liquor in the night of 18.5.2018 which is alleged to have been sold from liquour contract shop of applicant through his salesman; that arrest of Sandeep, Monu, Manjoor and Ramu was made with recovery of heavy quantity of contaminated/noxious liquour and name of applicant, Vinay, Shyam Gupta, Satendra Singh were mentioned by them as of persons, who allegedly fled away from spot; that persons, who were arrested with recovery of illicit liquour Sandeep Yadav, Manjoor Ahmad, Ramu Sharma and Monu Kashyap @ Ramkesh have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 2.1.2019, 3.1.2019, 10.1.2019 and 17.1.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.39025 of 2018, 44959 of 2018, 1411 of 2019 and 44510 of 2018, copies at Annexure No.13; that out of the persons allegedly fled away, Shyam Gupta has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40244 of 2018, copy filed at Annexure No.13; that applicant had no concern with liquour allegedly sold, as the business had been transferred by him to co-accused Vinay and liquour in question was never marketed or sold by or on behalf of applicant; that applicant has no previous criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 22.5.2018.
Learned counsel for applicants further contends that due to inadvertent error sections 304, 328, 272 & 273 IPC r/w section 60(A) U.P. Excise Act has been transcribed in bail application and affidavit, though in bail rejection order it has been transcribed as sections 304, 34, 272, 273 IPC and 60(A) U.P. Excise Act and prayer of bail application may also be read accordingly, for which supplementary affidavit has been filed.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that noxious liquour was found in forensic science laboratory report.
Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, grant of bail to co-accused as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Shyam Balak Ram Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No.218 of 2018, under Sections 304, 34, 272 and 273 IPC and 60(A) U.P. Excise Act, P.S. Sachandi, District Kanpur Nagar on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
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.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Tamang