High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53522 of 2021 Applicant :- Shahrukh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home At Lucknow Nd Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention to the court towards the bail rejection order so as to contend that so far as Case Crime No.421 of 2018 is concerned he has been enlarged on bail by the court below on 18.6.2019 so far as Case Crime No.218 of 2019 is concerned he has been enlarged on bail on 6.11.2019 so far as Case Crime No.370 of 2018 is concerned he has been enlarged on bail on 6.11.2019 so far as Case Crime No.398 of 2019 is concerned, he has been enlarged on bail by coordinate bench of this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5945 of 2020 so far as Case Crime No.306 of 2019 is concerned he has been enlarged on bail on 24.10.2019 and so far as Case Crime No.131 of 2021 is concerned he has been enlarged on bail by the court below on 6.12.2021. He has further argued that so far as Case Crime No.34 of 2019, under Sections 136/137, he has been enlarged on bail and in other cases also he has been enlarged on bail. So far as Case Crime No. 34 of 2019 is concerned it is post lodged FIR. So far as Case Crime No.34 of 2019 is concerned same has been considered while granting basis as referred to above. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 13.10.2021. If he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty, he be enlarged on bail. Countering the said submission, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail while arguing that offence has been committed by the applicant, as such he has been proceeded in the case in question, the applicant is not only named in the first information report but the recovery has been sought to be made from him, but he could not dispute the fact that the criminal history has been properly explained as per instructions received by him and applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2021. Sri Ankit Mishra holding brief of Sri Narendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant has also adopted the argument of the learned AGA however, he could not dispute that the criminal history has been properly explained as per the instructions so received them. Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the criminal history has been properly explained and applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2021, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances. Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons. In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Shahrukh involved in aforesaid 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 that :- i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. (iv) The applicant 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Any 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. Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained. Order Date :- 5.3.2022 piyush Digitally signed by PIYUSH KUMAR Date: 2022.03.07 14:17:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Mishra holding brief of Sri Narendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shravan Kumar Ojha, the learned AGA for the State. This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Shahrukh for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.130 of 2021, under Sections 136 & 137 Electricity Act, registered at Police Station- Babri, District- Shamli. The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 18.11.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Sub-Inspector Sri Deshpal Singh against the applicant and 3 others before P.S. Babri, District Shamli being FIR no.0130 on 13.10.2021 under Sections 379, 411 IPC regarding commission of offence with an allegation that the applicant along with the others were found in possession with 315 bore countrymade pistol and further they were in the process and rather stealing the properties of the electricity department. He has further argued that possession so sought to be shown is planted one, as there is no independent witness, who could see the incident.