Allahabad High Court
Sunil Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 November, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5451 of 2022
Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Yadav
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya,Pyare Lal Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sher Bahadur Yadav
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Amar Bahadur Maurya, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sher Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Shri Om Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant Sunil Kumar Yadav to set aside the impugned order dated 26.7.2022, whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh has rejected the bail application No. 2889 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 148 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Phoolpur, District Azamgarh.
Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 09.05.2022 was lodged on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. stating that the first informant with the help of Subedar Yadav approached the appellant and the appellant informed that he is a railway contractor and has appointed persons in the railways, on his own belief, the first informant paid Rs. 70,000/- for the post of Supervisor. After one week of appointment, the appellant gave the supervisor's identity card; after that Sandeep Kumar, Rajesh, Brijesh Kumar, Pravesh Kumar paid Rs. 50,000/- each and the appellant also gave him an identity card to them. After that Rs. 10,000/- had been deposited in their accounts but after that there is no payment has been deposited in their accounts, after that they demanded their money and the appellant gave several cheques to the persons including the first informant and the cheques were bounced "due to insufficient balance". On 01.09.2021 at about 10:00 A.M. the first informant met with the appellant but he threatened him with dire consequences.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that there is no date in respect of payment as alleged earlier by the first informant himself as well as other persons mentioned in the F.I.R. There is no evidence with regard to forged identity card has been collected during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that instead of lodging a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the first informant lodged the present F.I.R. against the appellant.
It is further submitted that the appellant has criminal history of one case in which he has granted bail by the court below. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 12.07.2022. The appellant has no other criminal history except one case.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 have supported the order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;
(a) There is no date in respect of payment as alleged earlier by the first informant himself as well as other persons mentioned in the F.I.R.;
(b) There is no evidence with regard to forged identity card has been collected during the course of investigation;
It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.
Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present criminal appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 26.7.2022 is set aside.
Let appellant/applicant, Sunil Kumar Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.
(iv) 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 the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.
The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked ;
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.
Order Date :- 4.11.2022
Ishan
