High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47013 of 2021 Applicant :- Vimal @ Prince @ Bhura Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar,Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Anil Kumar and Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma, both the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, through Video Conferencing and perused the record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail, in Case Crime No. 52 of 2021, under Sections 394, 411, 120B IPC, registered at Police Station Sahpau, District Hathras, during pendency of the trial. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he has not committed the alleged offence. The F.I.R. was lodged on 24.05.2021, in which allegation, of loot pertaining to Rs. 6,12,950 and two mobile phones, has been levelled. Initially, the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and it is only at the behest of the informer his name came to light and he was arrested on 31.05.2021. It is further submitted that co-accused Harjeet Rana @ Daju, who is assigned identical role, has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32182 of 2021. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 01.06.2021, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. It is further contended that similarly placed co-accused, namely, Harjeet Rana @ Daju has already been granted bail by this court, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. I have perused the bail order of the co-accused and find that the role assigned to the present applicant is almost similar to that of co-accused person, who has already been granted bail by this Court. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of 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, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative" and considering the facts of the present case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, namely, Vimal @ Prince @ Bhura, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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 IPC. (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., may be issued and if 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 IPC. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for- (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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. (v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 4.2.2022 Arun K. Singh