Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that alleged recovery of Rs. 6100/-, country-made pistol and a chain is false and there is no public witness to the said recovery. The applicant has explained the criminal history in para 11 of the bail application.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application and submits that the applicant has a criminal history of 41 criminal cases but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in 3 cases out of 41 cases the applicant has been acquitted and in the remaining cases the applicant has been enlarged on bail.
It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgement reported in 1990 JIC 739, Balai Singh vs. State and submits that in the case of Balai Singh there is no independent eye witness to the incident. The recovery is also fake and there is no public witness to the recovery.
Considering the arguments of the parties counsel, perusal of record and in view of the fact that this Court is of the view that this case is not such where the bail of the applicant should be rejected only on the basis of giving weight to the criminal history of the accused. Although due weight to the history of the accused is given while considering the question of bail but in my opinion this cannot be the only ground for rejecting the present bail application. In case the applicant misuses the liberty granted to him prosecution shall be at liberty to move application for bail cancellation. The evidence against the applicant is circumstantial in nature. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant, Veeru Soni @ Santosh Soni involved in Case Crime No.563 of 2019, under Sections 392/411 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 Madhu