Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8578 of 2019 Applicant :- Siddharth Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Murli Dhar Mishra,Kamaleshwar Prasad Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shahroze Khan
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard over bail application moved by Siddharth Upadhyay in Case Crime No. 73 of 2018 under Sections 420, 468, 406, 504, 506 IPC Police Station Kotwali Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar.
Learned counsel for applicant argued that accused applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number. The role assigned to the accused-applicant was only taking informant to his father Aditya Upadhayay who was a government employee at district hospital and it was Aditya Upadhaya who apprised about Vaishnav Kaushik s/o Dhruvchand and Santosh Singh, having influence in the Health Department and capable to get job in Swatch Bharat Yojna of Health Department and alleged payment of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited in account of Vaishnav Kaushik and payment of Rs. 4,60,000/- was to Santosh. The accused-applicant is neither beneficiary nor has persuaded or committed any fraud with a view to be benefited; he has no criminal antecident; bail has been prayed for.
Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for informant has vehement opposed bail on the ground that present accused-applicant is pivot who initiated this fraud and in all transaction presence of him was there in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C of informant and victim, hence, his bail application may be rejected.
First information report and statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C reveals that accused-applicant was school-mate, batch-mate and class-mate of victim Pankaj Gaur. He was not in a position to get job in government instrumentality whereas Pankaj Gaur and his brother was in need and search of job, thus the accused-applicant introduced them to his father, who was an employee at district hospital at Siddharth Nagar.
His father Atual Upadhayay apprised and introduced Vaishnav Kaushik and Santosh Singh with the intention that they may get their job because of their political influence in Health Department. The informant and victim contacted them and money by way of bank deposit to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- was made in account of Vaishnav Kaushik and the remaining 4,60,000/- was paid to Santosh Singh, meaning thereby the present accused-applicant has neither received any money nor he is beneficiary of share, he himself was a class-mate of informant.
Under the above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusation and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail with certain conditions.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Siddharth Upadhayay, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
3. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.
4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.
In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Nadeem Ahmad