Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54049 of 2021 Applicant :- Suraj Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anjali Singh Tomer,Gaurav Singh Tomar,Inder Pal Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Inder Pal Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ankit Srivastav, learned AGA for the State as also perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Suraj Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 1043 of 2021, under Sections - 376, 511, 354-Kha, 420, 120-B and 506 I.P.C., Police Station - NOIDA Sector-49, District - Gautam Budh Nagar, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) against FIR lodged on 24.10.2021, the applicant is in confinement since 19.11.2021;
(ii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;
(iii) the applicant has no criminal history;
(iv) though chargesheet has already been submitted, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;
(v) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix is the daughter-in-law of the present applicant. There are pre-existing civil disputes between the parties. The FIR is belated in the context that the offence is alleged to have committed over a long duration of time from 24.04.2012 to 24.10.2021, yet no earlier complaint had been made. Even as to the occurrence, it has been submitted, there is no allegation of completed offence. In short, it has been submitted, the present allegations have been made only to cause deep harassment to the applicant who is about 64 years of age and is in dispute with the prosecutrix.
4. Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the present bail application. He would submit, the allegation of offence of such nature, the delay has to be considered liberally. Even otherwise, keeping in mind the relationship between the parties and the fact that the prosecutrix is a widow, the delay has been explained. Further, it is stated, no indulgence is warranted in the context of the relationship between the parties being of father-in-law and daughter-in-law.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, at present, considering the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the FIR has been lodged after a long period of time, in absence of any other circumstance existing as may disentitle the applicant to bail, the present application may be allowed, leaving all issues to be examined at the trial.
6. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
7. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.
8. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 22.12.2021 Abhilash