High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143936 Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11480 of 2023 Applicant :- Sumit Awasthi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Himanshu Mishra Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant is taken on record. 2. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail in various offences since 11.6.2015. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of other criminal cases the applicant has been implicated in the present case. As per the allegations in the First Information Report, it is alleged that the applicant along with the other co-accused had been threatening the informant to resile from the earlier criminal proceedings and in this respect the co-accused has fired on the informant, however, no injury was sustained by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident is of February 2021 and at that point of time the applicant was in jail and it is highly improbable that the applicant would have in any manner participated in the criminal offence. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no evidence against the applicant except the criminal history which has formed the basis for the implication of the applicant in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the previous criminal history there is a dispute with the informant and as a result of the same, the forged and fabricated First Information Reports are being lodged against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 23 of the affidavit which are of 46 criminal cases. However, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the criminal history itself cannot be a ground for denial of bail when there is no evidence against the applicant in the present case particularly when the applicant was in jail when the occurrence took place as per the First Information Report. Applicant is languishing in jail since 19.9.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. 5. Sri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail application and submits that on the previous occasion there is a dispute with regard to Rs. 12 crores being siphoned off. However, he does not dispute the fact that the aforesaid dispute is not within the four corners of the present First Information Report and the dispute is with regard to previous offences. He does not dispute the fact that the applicant was in jail on the date of occurrence as stated in the First Information Report. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the bail and submits that the applicant has criminal history. 7. It is to be seen that in the present case the allegations with regard to firing has been made on the co-accused, Ravi. The applicant, as per the admitted case of the parties, was in jail since 2015 and the complicity of the applicant has been made on the basis of Section 120-B I.P.C. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the informant has not been able to establish any material facts and circumstances which shows complicity of the applicant in the present case. The applicant cannot be denied bail just on the ground that the applicant is having criminal history, more particularly, when there is no evidence against the applicant in the present case. 8. Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:- "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 Vs. 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. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is 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 material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, 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. 11. The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 12. No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. 13. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State. 14. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties 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. 16. Let the applicant-Sumit Awasthi involved in Case Crime No. 174 of 2021, under Sections 386, 307, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Gujaini, District Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. 17. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 19.7.2023 VMA Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad