Babu @ Ranjeet v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41459 of 2023 Applicant :- Babu @ Ranjeet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 57 of 2023, under Sections 380 and 411 IPC, Police Station Chhajlaith, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of ornaments made of yellow and white metal has been shown from the personal possession of the applicant. The recovery of Rs. 700/- belongs to the applicant. It is further contended that the recovery of other articles has also been shown from the joint possession of the applicant and two others. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Shanu and Vivek have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 22436 of 2023 and 25133 of 2023 vide orders dated 18.05.2023 and 02.06.2023. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 16 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since

04.04.2023 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Identically placed co-accused Shanu and Vivek have been granted bail by this Court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than six months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Let the applicant Babu @ Ranjeet, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶7In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 12.10.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad