Devesh Singh v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44086 of 2023 Applicant :- Devesh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶3The 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. 175 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Ramghat, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial.

¶4Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant has been implicated on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Dinesh Yadav in police custody. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. The applicant has not prepared any forged document. At this stage, there is no cogent evidence to link the applicant with the alleged offence. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Gajendra and Aruno Rajan have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 36528 of 2023 and 36680 of 2023 vide order dated 22.08.2023. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since

22.08.2023 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶5Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶6Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the co-accused Dinesh Yadav, in police custody. At present there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. Identically placed co-accused Gajendra and Aruno Rajan have been granted bail by this Court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two 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.

¶7Let the applicant Devesh Singh, involved in the aforesaid case 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 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.

¶8In 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 :- 3.11.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad