Prashant Sharma v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49583 of 2023 Applicant :- Prashant Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar,Deepak Singh Yadav 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 V.P.Tripathi, 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. 300 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 66B, 66C, 66D I.T.Act, Police Station Munderwa, District Basti, during the pendency of trial.

¶4Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant was arrested along with three other persons on 30.04.2022 and has been implicated in the instant case. No amount was credited in the account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transaction. False recovery has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered items cannot be connected to any offence. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Vijay Sharma and Sunny Sharma have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 17.04.2023 and 31.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 14347 of 2023 and 24633 of 2023. The applicant claims parity. Prior to the instant case, the applicant does not have any criminal history, however, after his arrest, he has been implicated in other cases. The applicant is in jail since 06.10.2023 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 no amount has been credited in the account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transaction. The is no independent witness to the recovery. Identically placed co-accused Vijay Sharma and Sunny Sharma have been granted bail by this Court. 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 Prashant Sharma, 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 :- 13.12.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad