Subodh Kumr Urf T T v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39940 of 2023 Applicant :- Subodh Kumr Urf T T Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Singh 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 Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶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. 272 of 2022, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station-Hasayan, District-Hathras during pendency of the trial.

¶4Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Pushpendra @ Malle in police custody. The said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. Recovery of Rs.8,000/- has been shown from the applicant. The said amount belongs to the applicant. It is next contended that the identically placed co-accused Sanjay Urf Baddan has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

11.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35450 of 2023. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraphs no. 2 to 14 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 12.4.2023 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶5Learned A.G.A. 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 first information report. Identically placed co-accused Sanjesh Urf Baddan has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has remained confined for more than seven 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, Subodh Kumar urf TT involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court; and,

(iv) shall appear on first Sunday of every month at the Police Station concerned.

¶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 :- 22.11.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad