High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:7387 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20031 of 2024 Applicant :- Akash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nigamendra Shukla,Vishnu Murti Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. None is present on behalf of the informant. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 161 of 2024, U/S 341, 307, 323, 325, 326, 308, 34 IPC, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. The FIR was instituted by the informant stating that her son was assaulted by some unknown persons on 5.3.2024 at about 6.00 pm at Meerut Road, thereby causing fractures to his nose and had even broken his teeth, thereby rendering him unconscious. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: 5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has nothing to do with the said offence. 6. The motorcycle Yamaha RX-100 was found at the place of offence and the word "Jaat" was written and it was later on found that the said motorcycle belonged to the applicant. The said statement is false, as the said motorcycle does not belong to the applicant. There are two persons with the name "Akash" mentioned in the case and it is not clear as to which one of the two is referred in the FIR. The statement of the injured person indicates that the applicant had assaulted him with a hammer and the co- accused persons had assaulted him with iron rods. 7. The FIR is delayed by twenty hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The delay in institution of the FIR indicates false implication. The gate-keeper Rajeev has categorically stated that he had seen three persons assaulting the injured persons with hammers, as such, it is inconsistent to the FIR, whereby, only the applicant is shown to be carrying a hammer, while the other co-accused persons are shown to be carrying rods. 8. It has been mentioned by the injured person in his statement that all the persons had assaulted him. The injuries are on the vital part of the body but they were not dangerous to his life. 9. The criminal history of the applicant stands explained, as closure report has already been filed in it. 10. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 9.3.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE: 11. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the applicant is named in the FIR and he was the main accused person, whose role is inconsistent in all the statements but he has stated that the role of assault has been assigned to three persons in all including the applicant, by the injured person. CONCLUSION: 12. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 13. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785 this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. 14. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. 15. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690. 16. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”. 17. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 18. 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 applicant 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. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that in all, three persons are stated to be the assailant in the instant case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant- Akash involved in aforementioned case crime number 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 following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) 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. 21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 22. 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. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad