Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24569

of 2021

Applicant :- Yogesh

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P

Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Yadav

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the

State and perused the material available on record.

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal

Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement

on bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2021, under Sections 395, 332,

353, 171F, 504 IPC, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 3/4

Public Property Act, Police Station Jagner, District Agra.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has

been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is

neither named in the first information report nor arrested on the

spot. After the arrest of the applicant, Rs.270/- has been

recovered from his possession, which is his own money. He

further submits that similarly placed co-accused persons,

namely, Puroshotm, Shree Bhagwan, Ram Naresh, Sultan

Singh, Bablu, Vijay and Safaruddin have already been grated

bail vide orders dated 29.07.2021 & 23.07.2021 passed in

Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.24027 of 2021 and 23445

of 2021. He further submits that since the co-accused have

already been enlarged on bail, the applicant is also entitled for

bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since

17.04.2021.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for

bail.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, 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.

Let the applicant-Yogesh, who is involved in aforementioned

case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond

and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of

the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further,

before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not

seek any adjournment on the date 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 IPC.

(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., may

be issued and if 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 IPC.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court

on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3)

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.

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to

conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the

applicant.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a

ground for cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the

applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in

forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the

witnesses.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order

downl