Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26799 of 2020 Applicant :- Vivek Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Dileep Kumar(Senior Adv.),Shambhawi Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application moved by applicant, Vivek Dubey, in Case Crime No. 532 of 2018, under Sections- 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. Police Station- Bhogaon, District- Mainpuri.
Sri Dileep Kumar (Senior Advocate) assisted by Sri Nand Vijay, learned counsel for the applicant argued that first bail application was rejected vide order dated 10.4.2019, second bail application was rejected vide order dated 4.12.2019.
The additional ground for this third bail application is the finding of Inquiry Officer, wherein, Inquiry Officer in report of departmental inquiry against the applicant has specifically concluded on 14.7.2021 with contention that applicant was not posted at concerned village on the date of alleged fabrication in revenue record. Moreso, these records were previously fabricated. The other ground is there applicant is languishing in jail since 5.11.2018 and after six days, he will completed three years under incarceration but even the charge has yet not been framed. Complete order-sheet as certified copy has been filed by way of supplementary affidavit and it reveals that in three years charge could not be framed. Then there is every likelihood that trial will be concluded after many years, whereas, offence is exclusively triable by Magistrate Ist class. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed, but could not oppose this fact that Inquiry Officer in departmental inquiry have concluded in favour of applicant and even after being in jail for about three years, the charge has yet not been framed.
Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through materials placed on record, considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness and prima facie case as well as the law laid down by Apex Court in the cases of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, but, without commenting on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the third bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Vivek Dubey, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.
4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.
5. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.
6. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by counsel of the party concerned.
7. The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad, and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
Order Date :- 29.10.2021 Kamarjahan