Allahabad High Court
Gulshan Saroj vs State Of U.P. on 25 March, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- BAIL No. - 3799 of 2021
Applicant :- Gulshan Saroj
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Vikram Singh,Ashish Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
The case is called out.
Heard learned counsel for the bail-applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application is filed on behalf of the accused-applicant-Gulshan Saroj, who is involved in Case Crime No.154/2020, under Sections 394, 411, 120-B of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Sangramgarh, District Pratapgarh.
The occasion of present bail application has arisen on rejection of bail plea of applicant by learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh vide order dated 12.01.2021. A copy of the bail application has already been received in the office of learned G.A.
Learned A.G.A. is present to argue the case on the basis of case diary and other relevant material available with him.
Learned counsel for the bail-applicant reading over the first information report dated 30.07.2020 submitted that the F.I.R. is lodged by one Shiv Prakash Pandey against three unknown persons, wherein it is alleged that the complainant runs a tiny Branch of Bank of Baroda and on 28.07.2020 at about 08:00 P.M., after closing of branch and an electronic shop, while he was on his way to home on motorcycle, three persons riding on a bike pushed his bike from behind, whereupon he fell down and the accused persons made fire on him but the fire got missed, thereafter, the accused-persons snatched the bag, which was being carried by him and contains cash of approx Rs.32,000/-, two mobile phones, laptop and an ATM Card swipe machine.
In the above context, learned counsel submitted that there is a delay of two days in lodging of F.I.R. and the accused-applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Learned counsel further submitted that only on the basis of confessional statement, the police has arrested the present accused-applicant and prior to the arrest of accused-applicant, there were no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel further submitted that co-accused namely Jahendra Kumar Saroj @ Jayendra Saroj, Brijendra Yadav and Sujit Saroj @ Panchu Saroj have already been enlarged on bail by learned Sessions Court.
Learned counsel further submitted that the accused-applicant is a local resident, not in a position to flee away from the process of the Court, is languishing in jail since 04.08.2020, is ready and willing to participate in the trial and will not misuse the liberty of bail, if released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail but did not dispute the contentions made 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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record, considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking into the complicity of the applicant accused in the offence, the gravity of offence, severity of punishment without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicant (Gulshan Saroj), involved in Case Crime No.154/2020, under Sections 394, 411, 120-B of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Sangramgarh, District Pratapgarh 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 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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 :- 25.3.2021
Saurabh
