Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35487 of 2019 Applicant :- Sundar @ Deva Jat Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This is the fourth bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on merits on 4.12.2015 while the second and the third bail applications were rejected by this Court in absence of counsel on 7.2.2017 and 20.4.2018 respectively.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The only submission made by the counsel is that the applicant may be released on bail for the reason of his detention period and it has been pointed out that he is behind the bar since 08.06.2013 and the trial of the case has not made any substantial progress. That is the only ground which has been pressed forth before the Court by the counsel.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Ordinarily, this Court leans in favour of the accused in the matters of longer detention but that criteria cannot be implied to the benefit of the accused in all cases without paying due regard to the nature of the accusations and other circumstances and the evidence available on record against the co-accused. This is a very exceptional case. A bank robbery was committed in an audacious manner and Rs.9 lacs were looted away. Not only Rs.50,000/- had been recovered from the possession of applicant but a huge recovery of money was also effected from other co-accused. The hugeness of recovery from accused lent strong support to its genuineness and it cannot be said to be a planted recovery. It is an audacious crime. The people in general repose immense faith in the security of their money and its safety in the safe coffers of the banks. If the same is brought under jeopardy and miscreants barge and break into it and commit robberies there, it not only causes economic loss but eventually lead to the desperation of people's and they loose faith in the institutions of banking itself. There is no good reason to lean favourably towards the applicant and obviously in a matter like this longer period of detention alone cannot furnish adequate ground to released the accused-applicant on bail.
Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
However, it is expected that the trial court shall make every sincere endeavour to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 P.S.Parihar