Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1676 (ALL)

Rashid @ Sameer v. State of U. P.

2015-07-01

MANOJ MISRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No.321 of 2014, under Sections 66/67 I.T. Act and section 420/467/468/471/506 I.P.C., police station Kotwali, District- Etawah with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the first information report. According to the allegation in the first information report, the informant's bank account was illegally debited against some unauthorised purchases made by fraudulently obtaining ATM Card No. The allegation is also to the effect that the informant was threatened against lodging of any first information report through mobile no. 8953229105. It has been submitted that one Puskar Tiwari (non-applicant) was arrested. He named the applicant as one of the co-accused in the crime. It has been submitted that from the possession of the applicant two mobile handsets and one ATM Card was allegedly recovered which was, however, not connected with any crime much less the crime alleged by the informant. It has been submitted that as such nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It has been submitted that co-accused (Mahesh Kumar @ Narendra and Keshav Prasad @ Depu) have been granted bail in the said case vide orders dated 10.06.2015 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 20167 of 2015 and 20165 of 2015 respectively. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated even though he is a person with clean antecedent. Lastly it has been contended that the applicant is in jail since 22.04.2015 and, in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 6. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 6. Let applicant Rashid @ Sameer be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional 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 as 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.