Allahabad High Court
Ramgopal vs State Of U.P. on 17 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:89768
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28301 of 2023
Applicant :- Ramgopal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gopal Das Srivastava,Krishna Mohan Misra,Prince Kumar Srivastava,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mani Ram Verma,Shipra Kureel,Sudhir Kumar Agarwal
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri R.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Shipra, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.139 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 506, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Chowk, District- Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution case, the applicant is stated to have usurped an amount of Rs.30 lakhs at the rate of Rs.6 lakhs each per candidate for getting them appointed as Class-IV employee in Central Secretariat Delhi.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. Not a single penny has been transferred to the account of the applicant. The said transactions are stated to be in cash, which are vague and false. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.1.2023. The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the criminal history of five cases assigned to the applicant stands explained vide supplementary affidavit dated 13.12.2023. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgment of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that in all Rs.30,85,500/- were taken by the applicant for the said appointment and he has returned only Rs.19,70,000/- of the informant and Rs.11,15,500/- are still remains with him. As such, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that applicant had already returned more than Rs.19 lakhs of the informant coupled with the fact that there are no money transactions to his account, 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.
9. Let the applicant- Ramgopal, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 17.5.2024/ Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
