Allahabad High Court
Chhavinath vs State Of U.P. on 1 October, 2019
Author: Ali Zamin
Bench: Ali Zamin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38939 of 2019 Applicant :- Chhavinath Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Tripathi,Madhup Vishwas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.133 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., P.S. Ghoshi, District Mau.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per prosecution version, the applicant runs a school namely Shri Shyam Rathi Vijyanti Harijan Balika Mishtri Primary Vidalaya Raghauli, District Mau. It is alleged that he appointed complainant Rajesh Kumar on the post of Peon, Sheela Chaurasia and Bagheru Yadav were also appointed by the applicant on the post of Assistant Teacher but no salary was given to them. On the other hand in the name of expenditure the applicant also took Rs.one lac from Sheela Chaurasia and Rs.one lac from Bagheru Yadav and Rs.50,000/- from the complainant.
He also submits that after a period of 12 years F.I.R. has been lodged, now the school has been closed. The applicant has no authority to appoint peon and Assistant Teacher. He has falsely been implicated in this case.There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that there is no criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 31.08.2019.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer and submitted that money which has been taken from the complainant and others has been disclosed in the F.I.R. the applicant has committed the alleged offence, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant-Chhavinath involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper or pressurize the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
3. 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.
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.
Order Date :- 1.10.2019 Asha