Raghuveer Pratap Singh @ Babban Singh vs State Of U.P.

Krishan Pahal, J

Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first Informant as well as learned AGA for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

By means of the present application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.66 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Kumarganj, District- Faizabad/Ayodhya, during the pendency of trial.

As per the prosecution story, the applicant along with co-accused persons are said to have duped the first Informant and other four persons to the tune of Rs.23 lakhs on the pretext of getting them government job.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no evidence on record which depicts that any money has been transferred to the account of the applicant. He has further stated that if any transaction has been done through RTGS is in the account of other person. The role assigned to the applicant is of threatening the victims herein to avoid visiting him again for getting the money returned to them. Learned counsel has further stated that a compromise was entered into between the first Informant and the co-accused Bhupendra Singh and the alleged money has already been returned by the co-accused Bhupendra Singh vide a cheque which has been placed on record. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.06.2021 and he deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.

Per contra Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first Informant as well as learned AGA have vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant on the ground that the cheque issued by the co-accused Bhupendra Singh has not been realized and the terms and conditions of the compromise has not been met with. The matter has yet not been settled once for all. There is a criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the supplementary affidavit. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Raghuveer Pratap Singh @ Babban Singh, who is involved in the aforementioned case crime number 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(v) the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the present case expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment, within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this court while considering or deciding the present bail application of the applicant;

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.