Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1055 (ALL)

Nipun Sahu v. State of U. P.

2016-03-28

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I

body2016
JUDGMENT Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State of U.P and perused the material available on record. 2. Contention raised on behalf of the applicant has been confined to the extent that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant was not acting as an agent of Balaji Telecom. The applicant is a salary based worker and is not beneficiary of transaction and allegations made against him are vague. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that co-accused Ankit Rastogi has already been admitted to bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.03.2016 in Bail No.1289 of 2016. Case of the present applicant is identical to that of co-accused who has already been admitted to bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. The applicant does not bear any criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 16.12.2015 in the present case. 4. Learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail. However, learned AGA has not disputed the aforesaid facts. 5. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. 6. Let the applicant Nipun Sahu involved in Case Crime No.985 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: - (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.