Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2326 (ALL)

Sri Sunil Kumar Jain v. State of U. P.

2015-08-11

MANOJ MISRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Misra, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Shiv Sagar Singh for the informant; the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No.363 of 2013, under Sections 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., police station Lalkurti, District Meerut with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that initially a First Information Report of case crime no.363 of 2013 was registered under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC at police station Lalkurti, district Meerut in which the applicant was granted bail vide order dated 24th June, 2014, passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in case no.1386 of 2014. The copy of the bail order has been annexed as Anenxure -'6' to the affidavit. It has been submitted that subsequently Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC were also added by way of supplementary charge-sheet and, therefore, the applicant had to apply for fresh bail under the newly added Sections, which was rejected by the Court below. 4. It has been submitted that the allegation that the applicant had issued fabricated/false receipts is not correct. It has been submitted that the alleged false receipts were not handed over to the Investigating Officer at the time of lodging of First Information Report and the receipts which find mention in the First Information Report are not stated to be forged and fabricated receipts although the allegation was to the effect that the amount received had not been deposited. It has also been submitted that the alleged false and fabricated receipts that have been submitted later does not carry the signature of the applicant. In support of the said submission, attention of the Court has been invited to paragraph 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It has, therefore, been submitted that since the applicant has already been granted bail for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC, he is entitled to bail under newly added Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 5. It has, therefore, been submitted that since the applicant has already been granted bail for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC, he is entitled to bail under newly added Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 5. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that the applicant has not yet deposited the entire amount, which has been allegedly defalcated and, therefore, it is not a fit case where the applicant should be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the informant invited attention of the Court to a confessional letter dated 28th May, 2013 submitted by the applicant before the Secretary of the Institution in which the applicant is said to have admitted his guilt and had deposited Rs.75,280/- which he had received from the students concerned. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the amount which was admittedly received by the applicant has already been deposited, therefore, there is no justification to impose any further condition for grant of bail to the applicant. It has been submitted that the applicant is innocent with no previous criminal history and is in jail since 13th November, 2014 and in case of being enlarged on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. 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. 9. Let applicant Sunil Kumar Jain 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 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.