High Court

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

3. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 650 of 2024, under Sections 140(1), 310(2) B.N.S., Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad during the pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It was a case of road rage. The applicant was not named in the first information report. The alleged Ecosport car does not belong to the applicant. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 05.09.2024 at 12.00 noon. The first information report was lodged on the same day at 23:24 hrs. At the time of arrest the applicant was shown sitting with the victim. The victim/ abductee had also stated that co-accused Rahul Gupta was driving the fortuner car and the applicant was sitting beside him. However, when the other co-accused persons were brought before the court concerned, the victim/ abductee stated a contrary version. He stated that co-accused Bantu alias Pushpendra was sitting next to him on one side and co-accused Surendra on the other side. It is contended that the said contradictions discredit the prosecution case. At the time of arrest, no incriminating article or money was recovered from the applicant. The arrest cum recovery memo is false and planted. There was no independent witness at the time of arrest/ recovery. The alleged apple watch was not recovered by the Investigating Officer. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-45 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and Paragraph-3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 06.09.2024 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

6. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the applicant was not named in the first information report. At the time of arrest the applicant was shown sitting with the victim. The victim/ abductee had also stated that co-accused Rahul Gupta was driving the fortuner car and the applicant was sitting beside him. However, when the other co- accused persons were brought before the court concerned, the victim/ abductee stated a contrary version. He stated that co- accused Bantu alias Pushpendra was sitting next to him on one side and co-accused Surendra on the other side. The said contradictions discredit the prosecution case. Further, at the time of arrest of the applicant, no recovery of any incriminating article or money was shown from the applicant and there was no independent witness at the time of arrest/ recovery.

7. Insofar as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any cogent material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court, if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, when no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused. Hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

8. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para- 30 has observed as under: "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter, we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

10. The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognized by the Apex Court more specifically on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51.

11. It is settled principle of law that the objection of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. Learned A.G.A. for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/ applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interest of the public or State.

12. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

13. Let the applicant- Manish Kasana, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and,

14. In 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 :- 31.1.2025 SKT/-

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

3. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 650 of 2024, under Sections 140(1), 310(2) B.N.S., Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad during the pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It was a case of road rage. The applicant was not named in the first information report. The alleged Ecosport car does not belong to the applicant. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 05.09.2024 at 12.00 noon. The first information report was lodged on the same day at 23:24 hrs. At the time of arrest the applicant was shown sitting with the victim. The victim/ abductee had also stated that co-accused Rahul Gupta was driving the fortuner car and the applicant was sitting beside him. However, when the other co-accused persons were brought before the court concerned, the victim/ abductee stated a contrary version. He stated that co-accused Bantu alias Pushpendra was sitting next to him on one side and co-accused Surendra on the other side. It is contended that the said contradictions discredit the prosecution case. At the time of arrest, no incriminating article or money was recovered from the applicant. The arrest cum recovery memo is false and planted. There was no independent witness at the time of arrest/ recovery. The alleged apple watch was not recovered by the Investigating Officer. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-45 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and Paragraph-3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 06.09.2024 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

6. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the applicant was not named in the first information report. At the time of arrest the applicant was shown sitting with the victim. The victim/ abductee had also stated that co-accused Rahul Gupta was driving the fortuner car and the applicant was sitting beside him. However, when the other co- accused persons were brought before the court concerned, the victim/ abductee stated a contrary version. He stated that co- accused Bantu alias Pushpendra was sitting next to him on one side and co-accused Surendra on the other side. The said contradictions discredit the prosecution case. Further, at the time of arrest of the applicant, no recovery of any incriminating article or money was shown from the applicant and there was no independent witness at the time of arrest/ recovery.

7. Insofar as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any cogent material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court, if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, when no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused. Hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

8. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para- 30 has observed as under: "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter, we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

10. The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognized by the Apex Court more specifically on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51.

11. It is settled principle of law that the objection of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. Learned A.G.A. for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/ applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interest of the public or State.

12. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

13. Let the applicant- Manish Kasana, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and,

14. In 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 :- 31.1.2025 SKT/-