Allahabad High Court
Hariraj @ Meenu vs State Of U.P. on 6 December, 2019
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54283 of 2019 Applicant :- Hariraj @ Meenu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record of the case.
By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 1101 of 2019, under Sections 62(A), 63 of Copy Right Act and 420, 467, 468, 471 and 418 IPC, police station Bishrakh, district Gautam Budh Nagar, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
As per the prosecution case, on receiving information from the informer regarding misbranding of cement, raiding team was constituted on the direction of higher officers of police. A team headed by Rajeev Singh Chauhan, In-charge Inspector, police station Sector-20, Gautam Budh Nagar was sent for search of Alok Jain (co-accued) and another team headed by the informant raided a cement plant situated at bank of Hindand River in old Haibatpur, where four persons, namely, Hariraj (present applicant), Rajveer, Chootu and Santosh were found present. On interrogation, Hariraj told that he is the Accountant/Muneem and other three persons are working as laborers on the said plant. He also disclosed that owner of said plant is Chandrapal. It is also disclosed that in the said plant, misbranded cement are manufacture from hardened cement by mixing ashes, dust of NTPC etc. and grinding of such cement are done in the plant of Sunil S/o Jagpal situated at Sector 146 NOIDA. It was also disclosed that after packing such cement in the bags of famous cement brands, it was supplied to the dealer, Alok Jain. On making inspection inside plant, several bags of cement packed in bags of branded companies, packing material etc. were recovered and one tractor trolley bearing No. UP 14 BQ 8749 loaded with 190 bags of cement, standing outside the plant was also intercepted. Applicant, Hariraj further told that the said cement was brought from the plant of co-accused, Sunil S/o Jagpal. It was also told that co-accused Sunil S/o Moolchand and Jayanti Prasad Giri are also involved in such activities. As per prosecution case, further several bags of misbranded cement were also recovered from the godown of Sunil and Jayanti Prasad Giri and Sunil S/o Moolchand, Jayanti Prasad Giri, Deepu and Talim @ Talib were also arrested by the police. Thereafter, on the pointing out of co-accused, Chootu, police raided the godown of co-accused, Harendra Bhati, where he was found present and in his plant apart from misbranded cement, grinder machine was also found fitted in the plant. Co-accused, Harendra Bhati was intercepted at the spot and disclosed that he used to supply his misbranded cement to co-accused, Sunil S/o Mool Chand and Jayanti Prasad Giri. Thereafter, on the pointing out of Harendra Bhati, police has raided the plant of Sunil S/o Jagpal and arrested him from the spot showing recovery of misbranded cement from his plant.
On the said fact, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that admittedly applicant is not the owner of the premise or plant where misbranded cement was being manufactured. It was the case of prosecution that applicant is the Accountant/Muneem and he is not the manufacturer. It is further submitted that the applicant is not so much educated and he was a paid employee of owner, Chandrapal. He was neither beneficiary nor has any concern with the business dealing of the owner of the plant to other dealers. There is no allegation against the applicant that he was manufacturing misbranded cement. It is further submitted that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case with some ulterior motive. It is also pointed out of that co-accused, Jayanti Prasad Giri, who was also involved in the matter as dealer has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 52577 of 2019, It is next contended that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit and is facing detention since 3.10.2019. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will misuse the liberty of bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, 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, Hariraj @ Meenu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that observations, if any, made herein above, were only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and will, in no way, be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
Order Date :- 6.12.2019 Sumaira