Allahabad High Court
Kasim Ali @ Shekhu vs State Of U.P. on 8 August, 2022
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31483 of 2022
Applicant :- Kasim Ali @ Shekhu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar Yadav,Vinod Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.
There is allegation against four unnamed accused in the FIR regarding house breaking and robbing cash and jewellery on the gun point. Recovery of two live cartridges and Rs. 3,000/- have been made from the applicant.
Counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. No item of stolen jewellery was recovered from the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of planted recovery. Amount of Rs. 3,000/- has been recovered from the applicant which was his money. The applicant is in jail since 06.06.2022. He had no prior criminal history and has been implicated in four cases after the present implication as explained in affidavit in support of the bail application.
On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Kasim Ali @ Shekhu, involved in Case Crime No. 359 of 2022, under Sections- 459, 411, 504 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Mainpuri, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(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 as directed by the Court. 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 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.
(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 applicant 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.
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.
Order Date :- 8.8.2022
Rohit
