Allahabad High Court
Rahman @ Sultan @ Azizul Rahman @ ... vs State Of U.P. on 22 March, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- BAIL No. - 3495 of 2021
Applicant :- Rahman @ Sultan @ Azizul Rahman @ Gama
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shakeel Ahmad Jamal,Mohak Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
The case is called out.
Heard learned Senior Advocate, Sri H.G.S. Parihar assisted by Sri Shakeel Ahmad Jamal, Advocate, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application is filed on behalf of the accused-applicant involved in Case Crime No.0009/2020, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C. and Section 66-D I.T. Act, 2000, Police Station- Cyber Crime Police, District- Ayodhya.
The occasion of present bail application arisen on rejection of bail plea of applicant by learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad, vide order dated 5.2.2021. A copy of the bail application has already been received in the office of G.A.
Learned counsel for the applicant reading over the F.I.R. submitted that complainant Ramesh Kumar Ojha, who was unemployed and was searching job, and he somehow met with the present applicant-accused, who assured him for providing job and taken Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant and said that you have to open an account in the bank for the purpose of salary and retained the passbook, voter ID card, cheque book, ATM card and assured them that after the training these documents shall be returned and on dated 6.10.2020 taken him to the State Bank of India, Naka Branch, Faizabad and submitted the original documents of the applicant, after some days the complainant came to know that the accounts which were open by the said officers of the company are misused and they are doing some online cheating and the applicant several times tried to contact the officers of the company but in vain and after searching here and there, he came to know they were not the officers of the company and they were the member of the organized gang and doing cheating.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant-accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated and so far as the allegation levelled by the complainant, Ramesh Kumar Ojha is concerned, no transaction of any kind is made from the alleged pass-book and ATM card. So far as the allegation of receiving Rs.25,000/- from him on the promise of the employment and training is concerned, this is false implication but the accused-applicant is ready and willing to pay off the aforesaid Rs.25,000/- for the sake to meet out the allegation against him. He has neither any criminal history nor has been convicted prior to this in any other case and is languishing in jail since 16.12.2020.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant further submits that the equally circumstanced co-accused Dileep Mahato @ Deepu, who was assigned the similar role by the prosecution has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.3.2021 (annexed as Annexure No.SA-3), therefore, the present bail applicant has also been entitled for bail.
Learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed with the facts stated by learned counsel for the bail applicant.
Keeping into mind the valuable right of personal liberty and the fundamental principle not to disbelieve a person to be innocent unless held guilty and if he is not arraigned with the charge of an offence for which the law has put on him a reverse burden of proving his innocence as, held in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the bail-applicant to enlarge him on bail.
Looking into the role, complicity of the accused-applicant in the offence, the prima facie case without making any comment as to the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicant (Rahman @ Sultan @ Azizul Rahman @ Gama) involved in Case Crime No.0009/2020, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C. and Section 66-D I.T. Act, 2000, Police Station- Cyber Crime Police, District- Ayodhya be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The bail application is allowed subject to condition the applicant shall deposit the amount of Rs.25,000/- forthwith in the account of the High Court payable to the complainant- Ramesh Kumar Ojha S/o Rajendra Prasad Ojha, R/o Pure Lal Mani Shukl, Kotdeeh, Khandasa, Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their 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.
(iv) In case, the applicant misuse 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.
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 22.3.2021
Gaurav/-
