Allahabad High Court
Manoj Shakya vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 13 January, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6116 of 2022
Applicant :- Manoj Shakya
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi,Aditya Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Pandey,Seema Srivastava
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.
As per office report dated 14.04.2022, notice has been served on the informant personally but no one has turned to oppose this bail application.
This is second bail application of the applicant.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 28.09.2020 by the coordinate Bench of this Court which is not available now.
Counsel for the applicant submits that two similarly placed co-accused, namely, Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari and Vishnu Sharan Rastogi, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 16863 of 2021 and 27711 of 2021.
He has further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.02.2020. The trial has not been concluded till date. This court finds that one of the co-accused, namely, Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari, was enlarged on bail.
On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.
This court finds that the applicant has parity of role with the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail. The main accused was the husband of the informant, Sri Pravesh Singh Tomar.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 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 considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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, Manoj Shakya, involved in Case Crime No. 26 of 2020, under Section- 376-D IPC and 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Fatehgarh Kotwali, District- Farrukhabad, 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.
Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 13.1.2023
Rohit
