Allahabad High Court
Shrawan vs State Of U.P. on 19 January, 2023
Bench: Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46366 of 2022
Applicant :- Shrawan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Singh Pundir
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.20514 of 2021 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.09.2021.
This is second application for bail on behalf of the applicant Shrawan in connection with S.T. No.39 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Lucky @ Sachin & Others), arising out of Case Crime No.330 of 2016, under Sections 396 & 412 I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, district Saharanpur.
According to prosecution, on 29.8.2016, in the Corporation Bank, situated at Sadar Bazar, Saharanpur, a dacoity was committed and about Rs.5 lakhs were looted. The role assigned to the applicant is that he was keeping guard when the other co-accused persons were committing the offence.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the new ground for seeking the bail through this bail application is that during the trial all the prosecution witnesses, who were examined have not identified the applicant as an accused and submitted that they could not identify the assailants at the time of incident because they have covered their faces with mask. The applicant is in jail since 07.10.2016 and the trial has not yet been concluded. He submitted that similarly placed co-accused Dinesh Raghav and Virendra @ V.P. have already been admitted to the concession of bail by another Bench of this Court by orders dated 23.08.2022 and 19.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.5666 of 2020 (Dinesh Raghav) and 3392 of 2020 (Virendra @ V.P.) and role assigned to applicant is similar to role of other co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail., copy of bail orders have been annexed on page no.62 onward of the paper book. He claims parity. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.10.2016, hence he is entitled to be released on bail and he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail plea but has not disputed the fact that PW-1 to PW-6 have not supported the prosecution case because they could not identify the assailants at the time of incident. However, learned A.G.A. does not dispute the factum of parity.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the period of detention in jail, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 and considering judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, 2021 (115) ACC, 691. In paragraph no.6 of the judgment, Apex Court has held that the under-trial could not be kept in custody for too long when the trial was not likely to commence in the near future, for not doing so would cause serious prejudice and suffering to him and also the fact that all other aforesaid co-accused persons have been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Shrawan involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission;
v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
Order Date :- 19.1.2023
R./
