HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Judgment Reserved on 19.2.2021 Judgment delivered on 2.03.2021 Court No. 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46551 of 2020 Applicant :- Sunil Dutt Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I..
2. This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking bail in F.I.R. No. RC2172019A0001 dated 2.2.2019 registered by CBI-ACU-VI/New Delhi, under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 7(c), 7A & 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station C.B.I./ACU-VI/New Delhi, New Delhi.
3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application i.e Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 18748 of 2019 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2019, thereafter the present application has been moved because of the change in material circumstances which have uprooted the prosecution version, as regards the applicant. By now, after framing of charges against applicant, five prosecution witnesses have been examined who have completely demolished the prosecution's case and moreover co-accused Ranveer Singh @ Ranbir Singh has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 21.10.2020, copy of the order is annexed as Annexure-10 to the affidavit.
4. In brief, learned counsel for the applicant has recapitulated the prosecution's case as narrated in the F.I.R. mentioning that first information report in this case has been registered against the applicant and two others named accused namely Virendra Singh Rathore, Inspector C.B.I., A.C.B., Ghaziabad and Ranveer Singh, Tehsildar, Aligarh besides some unknown officials of the Uttar Pradesh Police with the allegation that applicant had conspired with above named co-accused and was trying to influence in investigation then F.I.R. No. 421 of 2018 was registered on 3.6.2018 at P.S. Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar. In the charge sheet of the present case, it is alleged that co-accused V.S. Rathore and applicant had demanded illegal gratification from co-accused Ranveer Singh in order to influence the investigation in F.I.R. No. 421 of 2018. Following the alleged telephonic conversation between accused-applicant, co-accused Ranver Singh and co-accused V.S. Rathore, CBI team allegedly laid a trap on 2.2.20219 at the residence of V.S. Rathore i.e. Supertech Livingston Society, Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad. The allegation against the applicant is that he was supposed to meet co-accused Ranveer Singh who was carrying Rs. 20,00,000/- and then both of them were supposed to go to the residence of co-accused V.S. Rathore, but applicant became apprehensive about the presence of the CBI trap team and hence left the spot immediately. Thereafter C.B.I. is said to have recovered Rs. 20,00,000/- from the flat of co-accused V.S. Rathore. Applicant had surrendered before the trial court on 29.3.2019 after having obtained protection from this Court vide order dated 28.2.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 5421 of 2019. Subsequent to the arrest, charges were framed against him under Section 120-B read with Section 7(c), 7(a) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is further argued that applicant was not named in the F.I.R. or Pre-Trap memo and Trap memo. There was not even a whisper regarding his presence anywhere near the place where C.B.I. team laid the trap i.e. Supertech Livingston Society, though C.B.I. team had spent there about 9 hours at the said site of trap. Nothing could be recovered incriminating against the applicant or even remotely connected with him, pertaining to commission of offence. So called disclosure made by co-accused Ranveer Singh is in-admissible as the same would amount to a confession recorded before the police officer which never lead to discovery anything. Moreover co-accused Ranveer has been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 21.10.2020. It is further submitted that so far as the question of conduct of the applicant is concerned, he has been discharged in criminal trial arising out of F.I.R. No. 76 of 2019, P.S. Ecotech-III, G.B. Nagar, under Section 307, 342, 353, 435, 395, 509, 354, 34, 225, 216 IPC and Section 3(1)(d) of SC/ST Act disbelieving the version of the C.B.I.. The said discharge has not been challenged and has attained finality. The C.B.I. team never went to the house of applicant in respect of crime no. 76 of 2019, rather place of occurrence of the said crime no. 76 of 2019 was farm house of Yuddhveer Singh and not the house of the applicant. C.B.I. team never arrested applicant rather had gone there to serve upon him a notice under Section 41 of Cr.P.C.. It is a unique trap case sought to be established by the prosecution in which neither any money has been recovered from the possession of the applicant nor was he found present at the place of occurrence i.e. where the trap was laid nor anybody was arrested during the trap proceedings, nor name of the officials have come to the fore for whom the alleged amount is alleged to have been given by co-accused Ranveer Singh. No specimen of the applicant's voice was taken for being sent to FSL for examination, therefore result of forensic analysis respecting the applicant's voice being awaited does not arise. It is further submitted that Amrendra Pratap Singh (PW-3) was a Manager of Hotel Kapoor Inn from where co-accused Ranveer Singh had allegedly left in the morning on 2.2.2019. He has made revelations completely demolishing the case of the prosecution as he has deposed that raid was conducted by the CBI at Hotel Kapoor Inn, New Delhi and arrested co-accused Ranveer Singh was made from there and not from Ghaziabad, therefore prosecution version of trap being laid in respect of co-accused Ranveer Singh and V.S. Rathore at Supretech Livingston Society, Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad is nothing but a farce but the C.B.I. did not get the said witness declared hostile despite him not supporting the prosecution version. All the witnesses relating to entry and exit from Supertech Livingston Society, Ghaziabad have been examined but none of them has deposed that applicant was present at the place of occurrence on 2.2.2019, as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 have been examined and discharged by the trial court, their testimony have been annexed at Annexure 9 of the affidavit. The ground on which co-accused Ranveer Singh has been allowed bail is the testimony of PW-3 which has demolished the trap having been laid by C.B.I. at Ghaziabad, therefore applicant's case stand at better footing as nothing incriminatory has been recovered at his instance. PW-5 namely Sh. Rajiv Krishan Singh, Manager of Supertech Livingston Society, Crossing Rebublic, Ghaziabad, had made startling revelations with respect to serious irregularities committed by the investigating officer while conducting searches and seizures categorically stating that Hard Disc containing the video footage of the place where trap was laid, were seized by the C.B.I.. only to be not relied upon in the charge sheet. Applicant's presence could have been confirmed by the said video footage. It is further submitted that genuineness of the vehicle movement register (D-6) is also doubtful for the simple reason that while other register (D-36, D-37) ) were received by the C.B.I. under an endorsement from PW-5, former register (D-6) does not contain any such endorsement by PW-5, who was the only person authorized to certify and handover the documents to C.B.I.. He has also stated that he had no knowledge as to how C.B.I. came into possession of the said vehicle movement register (D-6). It is further argued that as per the trap proceeding memo, the same was prepared on the spot on 2.2.2019 and as per its contents, each page of the said memo contained a brass seal impression including last page, however, a perusal would show that there was no brass seal at any page which makes the said document fabricated. The independent witnesses namely Ashish Kumar and Vinod Kumar have also stated that brass seal impressions were taken on each page. Thus alleged recovery of bribe amount on the spot is not only doubtful but false on the face of it. The said trap memo has been relied upon by this Court while rejecting the first bail application and now that stand fully false and fabricated. It is further argued that register submitted by C.B.I. of vehicle movement (D-6) in which the entry of Car No. DL 1ZA 2644 has been shown at the bottom of page on 1.2.2019 at 6:57 AM and not on 2.2.2019. It is also noteworthy that the entire register is in ascending order of time except vehicle no. 2644. The entry of this car has been shown at 6:57 AM but this has been over written/inserted between 9:40 and 9:50 AM, thus the said document is also apparently fabricated. The trap laying officer Suresh Pal tried to cover up the said falsity by making statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. saying that inadvertently he missed out to put the brass seal impression on the spot memo which statement is diametrically opposed to the statements made by independent witnesses. If the statement of investigating officer is given preference over the independent witness's that would defeat the truthfulness of the investigation. While rejecting the first bail, this Court had directed the trial court to be concluded the trial within one year but it is a matter of record that trial is still at the initial stage as only 5 out of 43 witnesses have been examined, therefore it is not likely to conclude in near future. Applicant was granted short term bail vide order dated 31.3.2020 passed by the trial court, however on 7.5.2020 Division Bench of this Court in P.I.L. No. 564 of 2020 extended the period of interim bail till 3 June, 2020 and the same has been kept extended till 1.12.2020 and during all this while he has been regularly appearing before the trial court without having any adverse allegation against him of having influenced the witnesses. It is further argued that regular bails are being granted by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court to the persons who were already enlarged on interim bail in compliance with the direction in PIL No. 564 of 2020. No offences under Section 7(a) 7(c) and 7(a) or 8 are made out against the applicant.
5. From the side of the learned counsel for the C.B.I., in rebuttal it is submitted that as per F.I.R. co-accused Ranveer Singh was posted as Tehsildar who is a suspect in Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YIEDA) which was registered at P.S. Kasna, who criminally conspired with co-accused V.S. Rathore, Inspector CBI ACB, Ghaziabad, Sunil Dutt (applicant), ASI, CBI and others to obtain undue relief for himself and other suspects/accused persons in the said case pending with District Police. Co-accused Virendra Singh Rathore and the applicant had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 25,00,000/- from co-accused Ranveer Singh for managing the said case of YIEDA in favour of accused persons by influencing unknown officials of U.P. Police and others, however, co-accused Ranveer Singh had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- illegal gratification to co-accused Virendra Singh Rathore and the applicant. Co-accused Ranveer Singh had kept his money with Y. Tomar in Delhi and after collecting the same from Y. Tomar that was to be delivered as bribe to co-accused Virendra Singh Rathore and applicant on 2.2.2019 and an information was gathered from reliable source that co-accused Ranveer Singh would visit residential premises of Virendra Singh Rathore at Flat No. 1101, Block No. A-2, Supertech Livingston Society, Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad at around 7:00 AM on 2.2.2019 in a Maruti Swift Dzire Car No. DL 1ZA 2644 to deliver the bribe amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- to Virendra Singh Rathore and the applicant. On the said information, Suresh Pal, I.O. of this case briefed the independent witnesses namely, Ashish Kumar and Vinod about the said transaction and on 2.2.2019, CBI team led by Suresh Pal along with independent witnesses intercepted co-accused Virendra Singh Rathore and Ranveer Singh at around 7:40 hours in the above house of Virendra Singh Rathore. When co-accused Ranveer Singh handed over Rs. 20,00,000/- to him, both the said accused were intercepted at the said spot while handing and taking over the illegal gratifications and were arrested by C.B.I. team. During trap proceedings co-accused Ranveer Singh disclosed that crime no. 421 of 2018 was registered on 3.6.2018, P.S. Kasna against officials of YIEDA and his two brothers-in-law Gaurav Kumar, Manoj Kumar and his nephew Anil who was co-accused in that case, had been arrested by Kasna Police and further disclosed that police was suspecting his role also in the said case, hence he obtained protection against arrest from this Court. It is further argued that co-accused Ranveer disclosed during trap proceedings that he was acquainted with the applicant who was approached in the month of August, 2018 to get some favour in the said case at P.S. Kasna. Thereafter in the month of December, 2018 applicant brought him to co-accused Virendra Singh Rathore at his flat no. 1101. During interaction, co-accused Virendra Singh Rathore told him that he was well acquainted with Nishank sharma, Dy. S.P. who was investigating the said case and assured that he would speak to him to get a favourable decision. On that date co-accused Virendra Singh Rathore demanded a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as bribe from him (Ranveer) towards initial installment. Co-accused Ranveer further disclosed that during the trap proceedings applicant was also to join him at Supertech Livingston Society and was supposed to accompany him to the house of co-accused Virendra Singh Rathore. Applicant informed the co-accused Ranveer over phone that due to some medical emergency relating to his father, he had to return home, hence only co-accused Ranveer Singh came to the house of Virendra Singh Rathore. It is further mentioned that during trap proceedings on 2.2.2019 Mintu Ansari, Driver of the Maruti Swift Dzire Car, who brought co-accused Ranveer to the Supertech Livingston Society, stated in presence of the independent witnesses that co-accused Ranveer had booked his car for that day i.e. on 2.2.2019, therefore as instructed by co-accused Ranveer, he reported at Hotel Kapoor Inn, New Delhi on 2.2.2019 at 5:00 AM. Thereafter he picked up co-accused Ranveer from hotel at 5:15 AM and as instructed by Ranveer, he first drove him to Sainik Farm, New Delhi. There Ranveer went inside the house and came out in a few minutes. Thereafter he drove him to Block No. A-2, Supertech Livingston Society, Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad and co-accused Ranveer entered into building while he awaited him in his vehicle at the ground floor. While alighting from the vehicle, co-accused Ranveer Singh was carrying a green carry bag in his hand. It is further submitted that there were 21 accused named in the F.I.R. No. 421 of 2018 reflecting co-accused Ranveer Singh as accused no. 2 therein, while Gaurav Kumar and Manoj Kumar, who were brothers-in-law of the co-accused Ranveer Singh and Anil Kumar is nephew of the co-accused Ranveer Singh, who was also mentioned among those 21 accused. The said case was handed over to Nishank Sharma on 12.11.2018 who obtained NBWs against co-accused Ranveer and his brothers-in-law Gaurav Kumar and Manoj Kumar and his nephew Anil Kumar. Co-accused Ranveer Singh had got relief from Allahabad High Court against coercive steps while Gaurav Kumar, Manoj Kumar and Anil Kumar surrendered before the court below on 24.1.2019. It is further argued that co-accused Ranveer Singh and applicant were known to each other for last ten years and hence co-accused Ranveer was in regular touch with the applicant when F.I.R. No. 421 of 2018 was registered at P.S. Kasna. It is further submitted that special Unit, CBI, New Delhi has provided 89 audio files relating to the intercepted telephonic conversations among the accused-persons including the applicant. Government of U.P. had proposed to transfer the investigation of the F.I.R. No. 421 of 2018 to C.B.I. which was under consideration. The co-accused Nishank had joined C.B.I. in September, 2016 on deputation and was posted at CBI Academy Ghaziabad and the accused-applicant was also posted in the same academy, hence they also knew each other well. The said 89 audio files reveal that co-accused Ranveer was in constant touch with the applicant and co-accused Virendra Singh Rathore since November, 2018 and they had several meetings also. Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. had already been filed against co-accused V.S. Rathore on 2.4.2019 although supplementary charge sheet has been filed on 27.5.2019 against the applicant after further investigation was concluded. Further investigation is still on against unknown officials of the U.P., Police. Further it is submitted that witnesses so far examined in the present case had not said anything which may demolish the prosecution version. Co-accused Ranveer has already been enlarged on regular bail on 21.10.2020. The trial court has rightly framed the charges against the applicant and other co-accused. The role of the applicant has been discussed in pre-trap proceeding dated 2.2.2019. The deal had materialized at the premises of co-accused Virendra Singh in the morning of 2.2.2019 where co-accused Ranveer and the said co-accused Virendra had been caught red handed along with sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- whereas applicant absconded from the place sensing presence of the police vehicles near the said building. There was sufficient material on record to show that applicant was around the place where trap proceedings were held on 2.2.2019. The applicant has taken false plea that his father had slipped in the bathroom. He immediately fled from the place of occurrence and warned the co-accused Virendra Singh Rathore also not to take anything from co-accused Ranveer. On 2.2.2019 at 8.14.06 hours, applicant called up his cousin Ravindra Kumar to talk to his elder brother Yudhveer Singh to remove and hide the "back bag". During search conducted at the residential premises of applicant at village Sonpura District Gautam Budh Nagar, a black bag containing Rs. 18,00,000/- was recovered and seized on 2.2.2019. There is sufficient documentary evidence to establish the involvement of the applicant in this case. During search proceedings, informant's brother Yuddhvir informed the search team that the said Rs. 18,00,000/- belonged to the applicant. Apart from the said Rs. 18,00,000/-, Rs. 1,65,000/- was also found from the same premises but the same was claimed by the applicant's brother as belonging to himself therefore the said amount was returned to his brother. The applicant was absconding since 2.2.2019 and did not join investigation. A sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- was recovered from the house of the applicant. It is further mentioned that applicant had refused to give his voice specimen during investigation and the refusal memorandum dated 5.4.2019 is annexed at Annexure CA-5. Applicant used three mobile sims out of which one belonged to Mr. Amardeep Kaur and other to Ms. Kritika, who have stated that they had handed over their SIMs to the applicant. Regarding the analysis of mobile phones and other electronic gazettes seized, investigation is still awaited. Specimen of voice of accused-applicant along with other co-accused were taken, it is also evident from the list of documents which are annexed as Annexure-1. In the said charge sheet at Sr. No. 20, name of the applicant appears whose voice sample had been collected. It is further argued that PW-3 Amrender Singh, Manager in his deposition stated that co-accused Ranveer Singh stayed in hotel Kapoor Inn on 31.1.2019. He came in the late evening/night at 12:00/01:00 hours in the night of 31.1.2019 and left the hotel in the early morning at 0500 AM. He also stated that because of the co-accused Ranveer Singh came late in the night of 31.1.2019, he stated that he was under pressure and will hand over the ID proof next day in the morning. He has further stated that Ranveer Singh often used to stay in his hotel. PW-3 has disclosed facts of the case and nothing special is there in his deposition, hence he could not be declared hostile. Material witnesses are yet to be examined including witnesses related to arrest memo i.e. independent witnesses. The witness PW-3 has proved that co-accused Ranveer Singh stayed in the said hotel on 31.1.2019 and therefore he is only a witness of production of guest entry register of the said hotel to CBI on 8.2.2019 at CBI Office which contains entry of co-accused Ranveer and therefore he is not a witness of arrest. In fact witness of arrest are Vinod and Ashish Kumar whose examinations are yet to be done before the court below. As a layman PW-3 has stated that he is witness of seizure of register and process of entry, therefore facts related to arrest cannot be proved by the said witness. Applicant is misleading the court as he has absconded from the place of occurrence on 2.2.2019 as is evident from the intercepted several telephonic conversation on record. It is further submitted that as per factual position, there is no impression of any seal on the memo of arrest and seizure and brass seal impression on trap proceeding were inadvertently missed.
6. Thereafter rejoinder affidavit was filed by the applicant stating therein that during court hearing on 20.1.2021, CBI had made baseless allegation against the applicant that a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- was recovered from the house of the applicant situated in village Sonpura and the said recovery is now being treated as an incriminating circumstance against the applicant. Regarding this, it is submitted that the said applicant is resident of KI 88, Kavi nagar, Ghaziabad since 1993 which is annexed as Annexure No. RA-2 and that farm house from where the said 18,00,000/- is said to have been recovered is of his brother Yudhvir Singh who is resident of that place and to prove that copies of the electricity bill/receipt of his house have been annexed as Annexure RA-3 and RA-4. It is further submitted that the said Yudhvir Singh had moved application before trial court seeking release of the amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- which were recovered from his house which is pending before the court below. Clarification is also given that the said amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- was meant for repayment to be made of financial assistance sought by his brother from the applicant for purchase of land in Gautam Budh Nagar. It is further submitted that a mutual understanding was arrived at between Yudhvir Singh and the applicant that instead of making payment to Yudhvir Singh, applicant would pay directly to the seller of land from whom Yudhvir Singh was about to purchase land, therefore applicant had withdrawn Rs. 20,00,000/- from his GPF on 27.6.2018 and paid the said amount to the seller of land on 4.7.2018 vide two separate cheques. It is this financial liability incurred by Yudhvir Singh which was supposed to be discharged by the said amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- which was recovered by the CBI on 2.2.2019, copies of the Bank account statement of the applicant and application for withdrawal of GPF and sale deed are annexed at Annexure 6 (colly.). No case is made out against the applicant for the offences of the Sections mentioned above in fact no case has been slapped against the applicant relating to disproportionate assets case also, accused being public servant.
7. Supplementary counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the CBI, wherein it is stated that applicant was admitted to Vmhas Nayati Super Speciality Hospital, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi on 18.11.2020 and thereafter was discharged on 27.11.2020 during which period, he was treated by Dr. R.D. Patel, Sr. Consultant. Thereafter he visited the said hospital on 6.1.2021 at 5:54PM. He got discharged from the hospital on 27.11.2020 and at that time it was mentioned that applicant was comparatively more stable. It is further mentioned that he had travelled more than 60 KM to and fro distance in the evening on 6.1.2021. He was advised further follow-up after three weeks. He was neither admitted to hospital thereafter nor was he asked for follow up treatment regularly. Medicines were prescribed to him by treating doctor. Medicine and and oxygen inhalation were recommended SOS. Hospital provided CCTV footage of the applicant which would show that there was no oxygen support being taken by the applicant and that the said video clip of CCTV footage in this regard is made available to the court for perusal. The condition of the applicant is not so bad and hence he can get treatment in jail as well. If he is allowed on bail, he would influence witnesses, therefore there is no cogent ground for accused being released on bail as he would tamper with the accused-applicant.
8. In supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed from the side of the learned counsel for the applicant, it is stated that applicant was found Covid-19 positive patient with following report in respect of his condition:-
"Impression:- Old h/o Covid-19 positive patient Present study shows Extensive areas of residual ground glass opacities with septal thickening and early areas of fibrosis are seen in bilateral lungs predominantly in B/L lower lobers in both peribronchial and subpleural distribution with associated mild tractional bronchiectasis and subpleural lines.
Few small thin walled lung cysts are seen in basal segments of B/L lower lobes."
9. In view of above, it is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that he was in critical condition and is 59 years old person and about to retire having vulnerable medical condition therefore he should be released on bail on the medical ground also.
10. After having heard both the sides, this court is of the view that there is no doubt that two eye-witnesses of preparation of trap proceedings have not been recorded as yet who are independent witnesses but PW-3 Amrendra, who is Manager of Hotel, Kapoor Inn, has stated that the raid was made at the said hotel which is located in Delhi, and has further stated that co-accused Ranveer Singh was arrested from his hotel when the raid was conducted by C.B.I. and on this ground, co-accused Ranveer Singh has been allowed bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.10.2020 holding that the said witness has demolished the prosecution case of arrest having been made at the house of co-accused V.S. Rathore in Ghaziabad, although this argument is being refuted from the side of C.B.I. arguing that the said witness was never a witness of preparation of the trap memo as there were two other independent witnesses, whose statements are yet to be recorded and that this witness was recorded only for the purposes of entry of co-accused Ranveer in the said hotel of which he was Manager, therefore on this basis bail to the accused-applicant should not be allowed. This Court, in this regard, is of the view that benefit of bail has already been allowed to the co-accused Ranveer who is one of the main accused in this case who was said to have gone to the house of co-accused V.S. Rathore with an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- to be handed over to the applicant and the said co-accused V.S. Rathore. It has come on record that the applicant was never found present on the scene of occurrence and his presence is only being tried to be established on the basis of telephonic conversations between them and it is being stated that he was in the vicinity but having sensed that police was at the place near about, he fled from there feigning that his father had slipped in the bathroom so as to avoid his arrest. This would indicate that this is a factual aspect which needs to be decided at the time of trial but as on date, it may be taken that benefit of bail has been granted to the co-accused Ranveer Singh and the said benefit may also be granted to the accused-applicant as his case is on better footing as he was not arrested on the spot. As regards the recovery of Rs. 18,00,000/- from the house of the applicant, it is rebutted from the side of accused stating that the said amount was recovered from his brother's house i.e. Yudhvir Singh and to prove that, that house belonged to his brother, he has also given the form of electricity bills, identity etc. and the proof of residence of the applicant to establish prima facie that address of applicant and that of his brother Yudhvir were different. In this regard also benefit of doubt may be given to the accused-applicant. Besides the above two points, one other point is being raised that Rs. 18,00,000/- has been claimed by applicant's brother Yudhvir Singh regarding which application is pending before the court below which would also go to show that the said amount could be belonging to the brother of the applicant and not to the applicant. As regards medical held, record shows that he was having fibrosis in his lung and he was found Covid-19 positive and was admitted at the higher standard hospital, therefore possibility of adverse effect on his health also cannot be ruled out and lastly this Court finds that nothing has been brought on record from the side of prosecution that he did not appear regularly before the trial court as five witnesses have already been recorded and no instance of him having influenced witnesses of prosecution has been given so far, although it has been stated in counter affidavit that if he is released, he would tamper with the evidence but mere suspicion cannot take place of proof and having seen that he did not misuse his interim bail, this would be an additional ground to release him on bail.
11. Let the applicant Sunil Dutt involved in 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 that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
4. It is made clear that if the aforesaid applicant is having passport, he shall surrender the same before the trial court concerned before his release and further he will not leave the country without the permission of this Court.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
12. Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.
Order Date :- 02.03.2021 A.P. Pandey