Allahabad High Court
Shivji Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 15 April, 2020
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 107 of 2020 Applicant :- Shivji Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Lal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
During lockdown period keeping in view the (COVID-19) pandemic, this case has been listed today in my chamber under the order dated 10.04.2020 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Counter affidavit filed by the State has been brought on record.
By means of this application, the applicant-Shivji Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 403 of 2018 under Sections 420/430/431 IPC and 3/4 of Prevention to Damages of Public Property Act, Police Station Ecotech-3, District Gautam Budh Nagar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
In the present case the sole allegation against the applicant is that he was a marginal witness to the sale-deed executed by the co-accused Rohtash in favour of the purchaser in the year 2013 for the land belonging to the government. Counter affidavit filed by the State does not discloses any criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.11.2019.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, and 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 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant-Shivji Kumar be released on bail in Case Crime No. 403 of 2018 under Sections 420/430/431 IPC and 3/4 of Prevention to Damages of Public Property Act, Police Station Ecotech-3, District Gautam Budh Nagar on furnishing a personal bond 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 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 abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vi) The computer generated copy of this order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of this computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(viii) In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re Vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied. The order reads thus:
"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at it independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
Order Date :- 15.4.2020 Shekhar