High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Tomar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Gaur,Kandarp Srivastava,Ramesh Chandra Tiwari,Shantanu Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Shukla,G.A.,Niharika Dubey,Vishakha Dubey Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

1. List revised. None is present on behalf of informant.

2. Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

3. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. His first bail application was rejected vide order dated 28.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16834 of 2023.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after the first bail application was rejected by this Court, during the course of trial the applicant has moved an application No. 44-B with the prayer to direction the prosecution for production of DVR (Hard Disk) regarding duration of three hours prior to the alleged occurrence and three hours thereafter pertaining to the CCTV installed in the premises where the alleged occurrence took place. The said application No. 44-B was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 26.07.2024. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the applicant has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 33118 of 2024 for setting aside the said order and this Court vide order dated 28.02.2025 has set aside the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, while observing that the applicant shall be entitled to the copy of the DVR in respect of the cameras installed at the place of occurrence, without any addition or subtraction, the said exercise shall be undertaken by prosecution including the first informant as early as possible. In pursuance of the said order dated 28.02.2025 the applicant moved an application dated 10.04.2025 before the trial court for passing appropriate order for providing DVR of the place of occurrence. Thereafter, on 19.04.2025 one Santosh Gupta filed his affidavit under Section 65B of I.T. Act stating that original DVR is being produced and it is the same which was installed at the place of occurrence and there is no tampering, and on the same day the informant moved an application before the trial court stating that original DVR along with 65B affidavit is being filed, whereupon applicant mad objection that order of this Court has not been complied with. On 29.04.2025 the informant moved an application before the trial court that he has got extracted the DATA of DVR in surveillance drive and flash drive on which the applicant made his objection that no pen drive is given to him. In the order dated 02.05.2025 the trial court has observed that the informant has tendered a pen drive alleged to contain the material as directed vide order dated 28.02.2025 passed by this Court, upon which objection was raised on behalf of applicant that the order of this Court has not been complied with in its letters and spirits. Learned counsel lastly argued that despite the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by this Court the State has also not brought on record the copy of DVR. Thus, till date no any copy of original DVR has been provided to the applicant and the prosecution is adopting delaying tactics lingering on the proceeding of trial by not providing the copy of DVR and the applicant is in jail since 15.07.2022. As to the criminal history, that has been explained in the second supplementary affidavit dated 16.04.2024. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. As to the criminal history there is one case against the applicant which is under petty offence. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 15.07.2022.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the facts asserted on behalf of applicant.

6. Let applicant-Ashok Kumar Tomar, involved in Case Crime No. 415 of 2022, under Sections 302, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra, be enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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 I.P.C. (v) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

7. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

8. The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Mustaqeem. MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Tomar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Gaur,Kandarp Srivastava,Ramesh Chandra Tiwari,Shantanu Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Shukla,G.A.,Niharika Dubey,Vishakha Dubey Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

1. List revised. None is present on behalf of informant.

2. Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

3. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. His first bail application was rejected vide order dated 28.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16834 of 2023.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after the first bail application was rejected by this Court, during the course of trial the applicant has moved an application No. 44-B with the prayer to direction the prosecution for production of DVR (Hard Disk) regarding duration of three hours prior to the alleged occurrence and three hours thereafter pertaining to the CCTV installed in the premises where the alleged occurrence took place. The said application No. 44-B was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 26.07.2024. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the applicant has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 33118 of 2024 for setting aside the said order and this Court vide order dated 28.02.2025 has set aside the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, while observing that the applicant shall be entitled to the copy of the DVR in respect of the cameras installed at the place of occurrence, without any addition or subtraction, the said exercise shall be undertaken by prosecution including the first informant as early as possible. In pursuance of the said order dated 28.02.2025 the applicant moved an application dated 10.04.2025 before the trial court for passing appropriate order for providing DVR of the place of occurrence. Thereafter, on 19.04.2025 one Santosh Gupta filed his affidavit under Section 65B of I.T. Act stating that original DVR is being produced and it is the same which was installed at the place of occurrence and there is no tampering, and on the same day the informant moved an application before the trial court stating that original DVR along with 65B affidavit is being filed, whereupon applicant mad objection that order of this Court has not been complied with. On 29.04.2025 the informant moved an application before the trial court that he has got extracted the DATA of DVR in surveillance drive and flash drive on which the applicant made his objection that no pen drive is given to him. In the order dated 02.05.2025 the trial court has observed that the informant has tendered a pen drive alleged to contain the material as directed vide order dated 28.02.2025 passed by this Court, upon which objection was raised on behalf of applicant that the order of this Court has not been complied with in its letters and spirits. Learned counsel lastly argued that despite the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by this Court the State has also not brought on record the copy of DVR. Thus, till date no any copy of original DVR has been provided to the applicant and the prosecution is adopting delaying tactics lingering on the proceeding of trial by not providing the copy of DVR and the applicant is in jail since 15.07.2022. As to the criminal history, that has been explained in the second supplementary affidavit dated 16.04.2024. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. As to the criminal history there is one case against the applicant which is under petty offence. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 15.07.2022.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the facts asserted on behalf of applicant.

6. Let applicant-Ashok Kumar Tomar, involved in Case Crime No. 415 of 2022, under Sections 302, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra, be enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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 I.P.C. (v) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

7. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

8. The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Mustaqeem. MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad