High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100585 Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19755 of 2023 Applicant :- Pintu @ Javed And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to correct the name of the applicant no. 2 in the array of parties during the course of the day. 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 applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants were not named in the First Information Report and subsequently the statement of the informant and the injured were recorded where also the name of the applicants have not been surfaced. Thereafter, when the statement of the independent witness was recorded, the name of the applicants have been surfaced. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that no specific role has been assigned in the case of the applicants and the co-accused, Badre Alam and Aman Khan, have already been enlarged on bail by order dated 8.8.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31331 of 2022 whose roles are similar to that of the applicants. The criminal history of the applicant no. 1 has been explained in paragraph no. 16 of the affidavit. Applicant no. 2 has no criminal history. Applicants are languishing in jail since 10.4.2023 and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the parity. 6. Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant no. 1. 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." 7. 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. 8. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant no. 1 is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant no. 1 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 no. 1 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 no. 1 just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent. 9. 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 applicants. 10. 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 their mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use their liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Let the applicants-Pintu @ Javed and Kaif Khan involved in Case Crime No. 328 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia 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 applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. iii. The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. iv. 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. v. 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. vi. The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 15. 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 :- 10.5.2023 VMA Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad