Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28684 of 2022 Applicant :- Radheshyam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishwanath Vishwakarma,Deepak Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pushpraj Yadav Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Legal Reasoning
8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant Radheshyam involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (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. Order Date :- 1.11.2022 Prabhat Digitally signed by PRABHAT KUMAR Date: 2022.11.01 13:42:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as Mr. Pushpraj Yadav learned counsel for informant and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 20 of 2022 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Raipura, District Chitrakoot. 3. As per contents of FIR which has been lodged against one Sanjay Kumar, allegedly the nominated person enticed away minor daughter of informant. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him particularly since he is neither named in the F.I.R. nor any allegation has been made against him. It is submitted that the applicant is related to said Sanjay Kumar and has been taken into custody only on the basis of statement of an alleged eye witness Dilip Kumar. It is submitted that even from a reading of the said statement, complicity of the applicant is not made out. It is submitted that the prosecutrix also did not take the name of applicant in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. but the applicant is in jail since 24th March, 2022 and charge sheet in the matter has already been filed. 5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that applicant's name has been indicated by an eye witness account and even the nominated person in his statement has clearly indicated applicant as having provided money to him. 6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that applicant has neither been named nor is there any allegation against him in the F.I.R. The prosecutrix also does not indicate his name or role in the alleged incident in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. From a perusal of statement of alleged eye witness also at this stage, there does not appear to be any direct or circumstantial evidence against the applicant in the crime alleged. The applicant is in jail since 24th March, 2022 and does not have any previous criminal history. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."