Amar Nath Maurya v. Sate of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:194693 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2965 of 2024 Appellant :- Amar Nath Maurya Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of appellant in the Court today is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Kamleshwar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Amar Nath Maurya to set aside the impugned order dated 22.2.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Varanasi in Bail Application No. 621 of 2024 (Amar Nath Maurya vs. Sate of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 19 of 2022, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi, by which bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the first information report dated 03.07.2021 was lodged against the appellant and other 17 named persons, alleging that the first informant as an agent deposited 30 Lakhs rupees of his customers in the company but they had not returned the money and ran away after closing the company. It is further submitted that the appellant was the Director of aforesaid company. The appellant had not operated any bank account of the company till today. The appellant is languishing in jail since 25.1.2022. It is also submitted that the appeal of similarly placed co-accused Rajkumar Verma, which was filed against rejection of bail application in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2236 of 2022, has been allowed by this Court, vide order dated 23.12.2020. The appellant has criminal history of twenty one other cases of same nature, which were lodged in the same police station and the same has been annexed as Annexure-4 of the supplementary affidavit in tabular form. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted against the appellant and other co-accused persons. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. But, he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. After considering the facts of the present case, it prima facie appears that; (a) The FIR has been lodged against seventeen named persons including the appellant. (b) The appellant is not named in the FIR. (c) The appellant is only an employee of the company. (d) The appellant had not operated any bank account of the company till today. (e) The appellant is languishing in jail since 25.01.2022. It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present criminal appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 22.2.2024 is set aside. Let appellant/applicant Amar Nath Maurya be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) 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 of Cr.P.C. (iv) 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 the trial court. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked; The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 11.12.2024 Faridul