High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38389 of 2021 Applicant :- Pradeep Rana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilendra Yadav,Anurag Vajpeyi,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Vandeep Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 679 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 66 I.T. Act, Police Station- Beeta- 2, District Gautambudh Nagar. As per the version of the first information report, an NRI Salary Bank Account No.100026229080 of the father of the informant namely Suresh Kumar Yadav who is residing at Myanmar since last five years, is running in Alfa Branch, Indusind Bank, Gautambudh Nagar, was hacked and amount of Rs.67,30,925/- was grabbed by making transaction by some unknown persons and thus the instant FIR has been lodged by the son of the account holder. Initially the grabbing of amount was intimated by Pramod Verma, the then Branch Manger to the mother of the informant thereafter instant FIR was lodged. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant was not named in FIR and his name came into light only in the confessional statement of his real brother/co-accused. He further submits that identification could not be done as per norms. He next submits that as per the allegation, present applicant allegedly purchased gold coins after using the said Debit Card of father of the informant but nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It has been contended that the present applicant was neither involved in preparing the SIM Card nor the Debit Card and the co-accused Satish Rana in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has admitted this fact that he along with one Ravi, prepared Debit Card and SIM Card and at the later stage, he alleged that the present applicant operated the Debit Card and has purchased the gold coins. He next submits that this is only evidence against the applicant which is very weak in the eyes of law. He next added that police did not interrogate the Bank Manager, who is used to be operated the bank account of Suresh Kumar Yadav since last five years and further one co-accused Ravi who is key player has neither been arrested nor interrogated by the police. The role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of Ravi and Satish Rana as they prepared the Debit Card after managing the SIM Card and later on shifted the burden for committing forgery over the applicant which is not believable. He next submits that Ravi is key player and employee of the said Bank and was involved in preparing the said Debit Card and he was neither arrested nor interrogated by the police and the present applicant has made escape goat in the instant case. The applicant has been arrested on the confessional statement of the co-accused and such evidence is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. He next submits that there is one case criminal history against the applicant which has been explained in para 3 of the bail application as the present applicant has falsely been connected by the police in criminal case of the year 2016. Apart from one case, there is no other criminal history against the applicant. He was working at Delhi and was residing over there and he has no knowledge about any forged or fraudulent act done so far. He further submits that he is law abiding citizen and languishing in jail since 13.04.2021. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the name of the applicant came into light in the confessional statement of co- accused and he had purchased the gold coins by using the said Debit Card as such he was involved in committing the aforesaid offence. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, I find that the applicant is not named in the first information report and name of the applicant came into light in the confessional statement of co- accused and further no article recovered from the possession of the applicant and identification has not been done as per the norms. There seems to be no strong evidence against the applicant and the main allegation goes against the co-accused persons namely Ravi and Satish Rana, who allegedly committed forgery by way of getting SIM Card and preparing the Debit Card and thereafter there was no occasion for the present applicant to use the same, coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 13.04.2021, thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail. Let the applicant- Pradeep Rana involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties of rupees one lakh each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall get note his presence in person on the concerned police station on the every Saturday of each month. (2) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (3) 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. He 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; (4) 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.; and (5) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 4.3.2022 A.Kr. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.03.05 18:11:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad