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. - 33507 of 2022 Applicant :- Ravi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Shiromani Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhay Raj Yadav Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Legal Reasoning
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, Ravi, 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 :- 19.10.2022 Subodh/- Digitally signed by SUBODH KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.10.20 18:00:04 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. Shudhakar Shukla, learned Advocate holding brief for Mr. Abhay Raj Yadav, learned counsel for informant and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.124 of 2021, under Section 306 IPC and Section 66 Information & Technology Act, registered at Police Station Bharatkoop, District Chitrakoot. 3. As per contents of FIR, the informant's daughter is said to have committed suicide on 06.12.2021 by shooting herself. It has been alleged that one Deepak was in touch with the informant's daughter through the mobile number given in the FIR and had fraudulently got Rs.71,000/- transferred from the informant's daughter which was the direct result of her committing suicide. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and in fact there is no direct or even circumstantial evidence against him to make out a case against him with regard to sections imputed. It is submitted that even otherwise there was no deposit of the said amount found in the bank amount of the applicant and there is no evidence on record which would directly implicate the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 06.01.2022 and as yet only charge- sheet has been filed. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with the submission that upon investigation of the mobile numbers given in the FIR, the amount transferred was traced to one Sahjad who has subsequently in his confessional statement taken the name of applicant as being the ultimate beneficiary. It is thus submitted that the applicant has been taken into custody on the basis of circumstantial evidence for which the chain is incomplete. 6. 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." 7. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the mobile number given therein also pertains to one Deepak. The amount said to have been transferred by the deceased was on the mobile of the said Deepak who is said to have transferred the same to one Sahjad who in his extra judicial confession statement is said to have given the amount to the applicant in cash. As such, it appears that name of applicant has introduced on the basis of extra judicial confession only which would definitely require corroboration by evidence during trial. The applicant is in jail since 06.01.2022 and as yet trial has not commenced, although charge-sheet has been filed. At this stage there does not to be any credible evidence with regard to sections imputed against the applicant. 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