Allahabad High Court
Ajitesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 29 July, 2021
Author: Ravi Nath Tilhari
Bench: Ravi Nath Tilhari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 24 Case :- BAIL No. - 1458 of 2021 Applicant :- Ajitesh Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rishi Raj,A K Srivastava,Abhineet Jaiswal,Hari Krishna Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant-Ajitesh Kumar Singh for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.977 of 2020, under Sections 399 and 402 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda, during trial.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that allegations in the F.I.R. are to the tune that on the fateful day, the applicant and other co-accused persons were arrested while they were hatching a conspiracy to steal idol from a temple and during interrogation co-accused Raj Kumar Gharuk and applicant-Ajitesh had confessed that few days before they had stolen an idol from a temple and the same is with co-accused Javed. It has also been stated in the F.I.R. that when co-accused Javed was contacted at his home and was interrogated about the above mentioned idol, he got the idol recovered from his shop. However, both the hands of the idol were cut and it has been informed by co-accused Raj Kumar Gharuk that the same were cut by applicant Ajitesh Kumar Singh at his flat at Allahabad and a sample of the same was given to Mohd. Talib Ansari and co-accused Javed and after melting the same, the net content was kept by co-accused Javed and he had also given Rs. 50,000/- to them and kept the idol with him. Highlighting the above factual matrix, it has been vehemently submitted that the court below vide its order dated 02.01.2021 passed in Bail Application No. 1690 of 2020 has granted bail to the co-accused Javed whose role in the alleged crime is much graver than that the role of the applicant, but in utter disrespect to the principle of parity has rejected the bail application of the instant applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the co-accused Mohd. Talib Ansari and Rohit Singh have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2021 and 25.03.2021 passed in Bail Application No. 1291 of 2021 and 3766 of 2021 respectively. The co-accused Raj Kumar Gharuk has also been granted bail by this Court in Bail No. 4062 of 2021 vide order dated 07.04.2021. All orders are annexed collectively along with the supplementary affidavit already filed. He further submits that there is no recovery of any item from the applicant, whereas the recovery was made from the co-accused to whom the bail has been granted. The applicant is in jail since 13.12.2020 and has no other criminal history. He further submits that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate during trial.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail, but could not confront the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, gone through the material placed on record, considering the nature of accusation, complicity of the accused-applicant, severity of punishment in case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness, prima facie case, 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 commenting on merit of the case, a case for bail is made out.
The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Ajitesh Kumar Singh involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond;
2. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;
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;
4. The applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.
5. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C;
6. The trial court will make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Arvind