Allahabad High Court
Sompal Singh vs State Of U.P. on 2 June, 2020
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1350 of 2020 Applicant :- Sompal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Siddharth Pandey,Vishal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard Sri Vishal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State through video conferencing, as normal functioning of the Court is affected on account of nationwide lockdown due to COVID-19.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant for his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.750 of 2019, u/s 409 IPC, P.S. Ganj, District Rampur.
The allegation in the FIR in nutshell is that the applicant and one Dheeraj Kumar, co-accused, were working as Service Providers for refilling cash in ATM of the Bank. They were having passwords to open the ATM Machine. On 2.10.2019, on receiving instructions from Santosh Singh, an employee of Tata Company that UPS is not working, the ATM was shut down. As a result thereof, the camera also stopped working. On 6.10.2019, the applicant received a call "No Transaction" on the said ATM. On 7.10.2019, when he went to the site to verify the call record, he found the ATM Dialer to be broken. He immediately informed Dheeraj Kumar, who is co-custodian along with him. Thereafter, information was given to the police. On 9.10.2019, the ATM Chest was opened by cutting the Board, when it transpired that Rs. 9,95,600/- was missing.
The submission of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely made a scapegoat; that the applicant has been working as custodian for the ATM machine since last four years and there was nothing adverse against him; that he has no criminal history; the the bank employees in order to save their skin, lodged FIR against the applicant and the other custodian; that in case the applicant had committed the offence, he would have opened the Chest by using password and there was no occasion to damage the ATM Dialer; that there was one more camera installed at the premises, which had no connection with the ATM machine being shut down, but the entire investigation is silent about the CCTV footage, if any from the said camera; the co-accused Dheeraj Kumar has already been granted bail by this court by order dated 18.1.2020; that the offence is triable by a Magistrate; that the main witnesses are public witnesses and there is no apprehension of tampering any evidence or coercing any witness; that the applicant will cooperate in the trial and will not misuse the liberty if granted bail. It is also urged that the applicant has already been languishing in jail since 28.11.2019.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the offence is of a serious nature; that charge sheet has already been submitted against the accused persons and that the bail be rejected.
It is not disputed that the main witnesses in the case are public witnesses/bank employees and that the ATM Dialer was found broken.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping in mind the entire facts and circumstances and the nature of accusation, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let the applicant - Sompal Singh, involved in aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- 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 not tamper with prosecution evidence and shall cooperate in the investigation and will not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail otherwise it would become a ground for cancellation of bail.
(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 such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 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."
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 2.6.2020 Jaideep/-