Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48193 of 2018 Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.783 of 2017, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia.
According to the prosecution, applicant was appointed as contractual employee in I.W.M.P, Project No.3 by which a joint bank account was opened in the name of the applicant along with one Brijesh Kumar Singh (member of the development unit) in the Bank of India, Branch Okdenganj, District Ballia. It is alleged that on the basis of sole signature, applicant withdrew an amount of Rs.5,40,000/- through cheque bearing Cheque No.9901 without joint account holder (member development unit) and without countersign of competent authority of the department. It has been further submitted that the signature was different so it was not possible for the applicant to withdraw the amount. To cut short his argument, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready to deposit under protest the half of the requisite amount in question i.e.Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees two lacs seventy thousand) within a period of two months next after his release by way of demand draft before the court concerned. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that there is no criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 18.09.2018.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer and submitted that the applicant has committed the alleged offence, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant-Sudhir Kumar Singh involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned along with an undertaking that he will co- operate with the trial and also remain present before the court concerned as and when the date is fixed in the trial proceedings, subject to the following conditions :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper or pressurize the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
3. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
4. It is made clear that the proof of compliance shall be presented/moved before the Court concerned by the applicant himself within the aforesaid period (two months) and in case, applicant does not move the proof of compliance before the Court concerned within the time stipulated as above, Court concerned shall straight-way cancel the bail of the applicant If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is 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.
Order Date :- 21.6.2019 S. Singh