The court has the discretion to grant bail to an accused person, considering the nature of the offense, the evidence on record, and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Court No. - 91

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45073

of 2021

Applicant :- Sonu

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the

applicant, Sri Rajeev Trivedi, learned counsel for the informant,

learned AGA for the State through video conferencing and also

perused the material placed on record.

By means of the present application, the applicant- Sonu, seeks

bail in Case Crime No.435 of 2020, under Sections 457, 380,

411 IPC, Police Station- Jhinjhana , District- Shamli, during the

pendency of trial.

As per the allegations made in the FIR, the attempt to rob the

bank is said to have been made in the night of 12/13.09.2020,

but nothing could be taken from the Bank except the DVR of

C.C.T.V. Camera is said to have been stolen from it. Learned

counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has been falsely

implicated in the present case and the recovery of the said DVR

of C.C.T.V. Camera is alleged to have been made from the

possession of the applicant after lapse of about one year. The

occurrence is said to have been take place on 12/13.09.2020.

The said recovery also do not fall in the exception provided

under the Evidence Act. It is next submitted that applicant has

criminal history of two cases, which have been explained in

para 18 of the affidavit annexed with the bail application, in

which he has been already enlarged on bail. The applicant is

languishing in jail since 05.08.2021 and he deserves to be

released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he

will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the

trial.

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on

the ground that there is a recovery of the said DVR of the

C.C.T.V. Camera from the applicant/accused-person.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record

regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the

Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex

Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and

another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing

any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view

that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail

application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Sonu, 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