This single judge Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application was allowed. The Court found that the applicant, who was not named in the First Information Report and has no criminal history, was a fit case for bail, especially considering the co-accused was already on bail and pandemic conditions.
Bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 92
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40818 of 2021
Applicant :- Sanjay Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ali Imam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Syed Ali Imam learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shrawan Kumar Ojha, learned AGA for the State through V.C.
This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant Sanjay Yadav for seeking bail in Case Crime No.1957 of 2020 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 I.P.C. registered at Police StationIndrapuram, District-Ghaziabad.
The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 18.6.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that first information report has been lodged by one Smt. Aditi Singh Panuli before Police Station-Indrapuram, District-Ghaziabad being FIR No.1957 on 10.12.2020 at 16.05 hours, under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2008 with an allegation that on 8.12.2020 the complainant has been duped online while using ATM Card and withdrawing an amount of Rs.20,000/-, 5 times in a span of 10 minutes and also from the ATM card one lakh has also been deducted. He has further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case in question, as the recovery of amount of Rs.2,30,000/- so sought to be shown against the applicant is false and planted one and the story has been sought to be cooked up against the applicant. He has further contended that the entire prosecution story is improbable far beyond the truth and there was no independent impartial or reliable witness and could have seen said incident. He has next argued that an amount of Rs.8,70,000/- has been found from the possession one Kuldeep as well as the story so sought to be cooked up and that the applicant was found in possession of Rs.2,30,000/- cash is a planted story also.
It has been further argued that the applicant does not have any criminal history prior to the lodging of the first information
report as in this regard the applicant has invited the attention of this court towards paragraph 19 of the application. However, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the post lodging of the FIR in question two criminal cases have been lodged and one being Case Crime No.1957 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and other Case Crime No.1957 of 2021 under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2008. He has further argued that the coaccused being Harsh Sharma has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.34688 of 2021, Harsh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. entitle to parity in this regard.
According to learned counsel for the applicant the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.5.2021.
Countering the said submissions learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail on the strength of counter affidavit so filed by him while arguing that the applicant has committed an offence incriminating articles as well as cash was found from the possession of applicant and though his name did not find place in the first information report will not be a ground to hold applicant is innocent. He has further argued that the applicant does not have criminal history prior to lodging of the FIR but the same cannot ground for granting bail.
Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, prima facie this Court finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the applicant was not named in the first information report and further the applicant does not have any criminal history and coaccused has already enlarged on bail, looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.
Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Sanjay Yadav involved in aforesaid 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 that :-
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Any observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.
Order Date :- 4.2.2022 piyush
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in a case punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjay Yadav
State of U.P.
Vikas Budhwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
