Sunil Shakt vs State on 25 May, 2001
24. Admittedly, the chargesheet has since been filed; the trial has not
yet begin; there are numerous witnesses to be examined and it would take
years to examine them; there is no possibility of dropping of evidence;
the petitioners are not at flight risk as their passports have since been
surrendered; they were earlier released on interim bail and did not misuse
their liberty and have been in judicial custody for the last more than five
years; the applicability of Section 436A Cr.P.C.; all evidence being
documentary and in custody of Investigating Officer; hence, tempering is
ruled out as is already in the sole custody of the State. Further the
accused have been giving various schemes, including of upfront
payments, though not accepted as they being in jail. Further admittedly,
the applicants have already been granted bail in three other FIRs pending
adjudication before the District Court, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Greater
Noida, Uttar Pradesh, thus, in view of the law discussed above viz.
Satender Kumar Antil (supra) Sunil Shakt (supra) and others, as also the
facts stated above more specifically in paras 11, 12, 13, 24 above; I admit
both the accused to bail on their furnishing personal bond of Rs.5.00 lacs
each with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court in each of the FIR. The petitioners are directed to keep their
mobile location app open at all time. They shall not leave the country
without permission of the learned Trial Court and shall not
threaten/coerce/influence the complainants/victims in any manner lest it
shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.