1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for respondent No.1 - State and Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This application has been filed for cancellation of bail granted by this court vide order dated 18.12.2019 in Bail Application No.12309 of 2019. The bail was granted on following grounds:
"Sri Arun Sinha, learned Advocate has today filed Vakalatnama in the Court on behalf of the applicant. The same may be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the respondent State.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No.878 of 2017 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 504 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station PGI, District Lucknow.
In the first information report, the allegation against the applicant is that he met with complainant at Delhi and advised him to meet the officials of Ansal AGI at Lucknow to get the land in scheme.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not involved in any manner in making agreement of sale or any transaction with the complainant in transfer of land of the Ansal AGI. He further submitted that there were 7 first information reports registered against the applicant out of which, in 6 cases almost similar allegations were levelled, wherein the applicant has been granted bail and copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.11 and 12 to the bail application and copy of last bail order has been filed today in the Court along with supplementary affidavit. The same may be taken on record.
In view of the above, submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is entitled for enlargement on bail.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by learned counsel for the accused-applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let applicant (Harish Gulla) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to 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 misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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 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."
3. On a query made to learned counsel for the applicant that which condition of the bail order has been violated, he is not able to point out that which clause of the bail application has been violated or misused by respondent No.2.
4. Upon consideration of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I found no ground to cancel the bail order dated 18.12.2019.
5. Accordingly, the application sans merit and is hereby rejected.
6. In compliance of order passed by this court, respondent No.2 is present before this court in person. His presence is exempted, unless required by this court.
7. The application is consigned to record.
Order Date :- 11.2.2021 Adarsh K Singh