High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47588 of 2021 Applicant :- Fahimuddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey,Mahendra Prakash,Shikhar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shashi Prakash Pandey Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. On the last occasion, i.e., 23.2.2022, the informant was not present when this Court passed the following order:- "Case called out. No one is present on behalf of the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. are present. As prayed, list/put up on 7.3.2022 as fresh.
Legal Reasoning
on 2.3.2022 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47583 of 2021. The applicant has no previous criminal history which he has mentioned in paragraph 17 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.9.2021. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the investigation. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and he has committed forgery and cheat in respect of certain amount, but he could not dispute the fact that co-accused has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and further criminal history has been explained in paragraph no. 17 of affidavit filed in support of the bail application. After perusal of record, I find that co-accused Shahrukh Khan has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, further criminal history of the applicant has been explained, coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 4.9.2021, 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- Fahimuddin involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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; (3) 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 (4) 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 :- 7.3.2022 Ram Murti Digitally signed by RAM MURTI YADAV Date: 2022.03.11 10:50:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
It is made clear that in cse, on the net date fixed, learned counsel for the informant would not remain present, the Court will proceed in absence of counsel for the informant." Case called out. Today also, no one is present on behalf of the informant in spite of the last order of the Court. Hence, the Court proceeds to hear the matter in absence of the counsel for the informant. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.230 of 2021, under Sections 420, 468, I.P.C. and 66D Information Technology Act, P.S.- Naraura, District - Bulandshahr. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant made a deal with Lechoshch Auto Distribution Shlesiyarveg 179750 Abelsbok German CVR: H.R.V. 8688 Bamburg Telephone No.4915211764634 Company through alibaba.com for purchasing a Toyota Land Crusur V8Z-Ex full option model 2018 in Rs.11,28,477/- and it was to be delivered at the residence of the informant. As per the version of the F.I.R., an amount of Rs. 3,10,523.60 was transferred in the applicant's account bearing no.0069000109376670 of the Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Bulandshahr on 25.1.2021 in the name of custom and excise duty. It is further submitted that the applicant has not induced the informant in any way to deposit the said amount in his account. Further he has shown his bona fide submitting that he has transferred the alleged amount in the account of co-accused Petro Mabo King residence of Greator Noida which is evident from parcha CD4. There was no occasion for the applicant to commit any forgery as he himself is victim of the same. Further submission is that similarly situated co-accused Shahrukh Khan has been enlarged on bail