Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1940 (ALL)

Manmohan Singh @ Mohan v. State of U. P.

2015-07-17

HARSH KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT Harsh Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated; that the applicant is not named in F.I.R. relating to loot of Rs.25,000/- from first informant; that the recovery of Rs. 2,360/-, the own money of applicant has been falsely shown from the applicant on 26.2.2015; that the real fact is that the applicant's wife was admitted in District Hospital, Faizabad for operation of stone and on 22.2.2015, the applicant was going to see her when the police personnel taken him in custody and kept him detained and when sister of applicant informed the higher authorities, he has been falsely implicated in this case with false recovery; that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery; that the applicant has been falsely implicated in several cases as mentioned in the bail rejection order passed by Sessions Judge, Faizabad out of which, two cases are under Gunda Act have been decided and three cases are not known to applicant while in other cases, he has been granted bail, the bail orders are filed collectively at Annexure No.7 to the affidavit; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 26.2.2015. 3. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the applicant has a long criminal history with a case of under section 2/3 Gangster Act. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. 5. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. 5. Let the applicant Manmohan Singh @ Mohan be released on bail in Case Crime No. 227 of 2014, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, P.S. Kumarganj, District Faizabad, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions: - (i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. 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.