High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12542 of 2023 Applicant :- Babu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gajendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are not named in the first information report. Some parts of animals has been recovered. It is submitted that subsequently, the applicants have been arrested on the information of mukhbir khas. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no direct evidence linking the applicants with the alleged recovery. The criminal history of the applicants have been explained in paragraph 16 of the affidavit. Co-accused has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 15.03.2023 of this Court. Applicants are languishing in jail since 30.12.2022 and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case. Learned AGA has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the Applicants. 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 v. 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." 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 the accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicants might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that they might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicants 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 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. 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. No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA 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. 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 applicants 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. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicants are not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State. 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 applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicants Babu and Chote involved in Case Crime No. 695 of 2022, under Sections 3/5/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station- Bhojipura, District- Bareillys 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:- 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2. The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. 3. The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. 4. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. 5. The applicants 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. 6. The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 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 :- 28.4.2023 Sumit Kumar Digitally signed by :- SUMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad