Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.

1. Heard Mr. Piyush Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.

2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicantShivam Yadav with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 84 of 2022, under Sections 392, 411 and 120B I.P.C. Police Station-Highway, District-Samthar, District-Jhansi, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present first information report has been lodged against unknown persons but he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the Police showing false recovery of Rs. 3,75,000/- against him, which is not related to the applicant. There was no public witness of the alleged recovery and it seems to be planted by the police in connivance with the informant -manager of the petrol pump. In alleged recovery memo denomination of notes have been shown but its numbers were not shown which was necessary to constitute the offense. No test identification parade has been done by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that the co-accused, namely, Sahil Dohre has already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28th September, 2022. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid coaccused. As such the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has two other criminal history except the present one but the same has satisfactorily been explained in pargraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 18th June, 2022.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

5. Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, [LQ/SC/2018/152] let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

6. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.