Allahabad High Court
Vimlesh Kumar Trivedi vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 16 July, 2019
Author: Pritinker Diwaker
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 802 of 2019 Appellant :- Vimlesh Kumar Trivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Aftab Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Order on C.M. Application No.52928 of 2019 Heard Sri Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Shikha Sinha, learned counsel for the State.
For the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Order on Appeal Appeal is formally admitted for hearing.
With the consent of parties, the appeal is heard finally.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the impugned order dated 28.4.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No.50 of 2017, whereby the court below has rejected the said application as filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, arising out of Crime No. 291/2016 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471, 504, 506 of IPC, Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act and Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Tadiyawan, District Hardoi.
As per prosecution case, on 24.11.2016, FIR was lodged by Harishchand, father of the victim Suman alleging in it that the appellant and co-accused persons, namely Rajaram Mishra and Vijay Awasthi had taken Rs.2,50,000/- from him for providing a government job to Suman. According to complainant, this amount was taken some time in the month of March, 2015. A forged appointment letter was given to Suman in the month of June, 2016 but till date, his daughter could not get any legal appointment order. He has further alleged that the appellant had also issued a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- but the same had bounced.
Counsel for the appellant submits:
(i) that similarly placed co-accused Rajaram Mishra has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.3.2019, on the ground of parity, the appellant is also entitled for bail.
(ii) that the appellant is in jail since 8.2.2017 and there no substantial progress in the trial and the same may take much time for its final conclusion.
(iii) that the provisions of the SC/ST Act would not attract in the present case, as it is not the case of the prosecution that because the victim belongs to a particular caste, the offence has been committed.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. She however does not dispute that the case of the appellant is almost identical to that of co-accused Rajaram Mishra.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, the fact that the similarly placed accused Rajaram Mishra has been granted bail, the appellant is in jail since 8.2.2017 and there is absolutely no progress in the trial, without further commenting on merit, I am inclined to allow the appeal. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
Let the appellant Vimlesh Kumar Trivedi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakh) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under section 229-A I.P.C.
(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(iv) The appellant 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 appellant 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/her in accordance with law.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a year from the date of receipt of this order after the release of the appellant.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
It would be the duty of the appellant and the State counsel to communicate this order to the concerned court and also to the concerned District Judge. The Registry is also directed to communicate this order to the concerned court and to the concerned District Judge.
Order Date :- 16.7.2019 RK