Bhoora v. State of U.P.), a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133810 Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26100 of 2024 Applicant :- Anil Kumar @ Bhoora Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anish Kumar Singh,Virpratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Veer Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and Mr. Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material available on record. 2. This is the second bail application filed by the applicant. The first bail application has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5129 of 2024 (Anil Kumar @ Bhoora Vs. State of U.P.), a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.1 of this application. 3. This is the second bail application has been filed by the applicant, Anil Kumar @ Bhoora with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.107 of 2023, under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Panwadi, District-Mahoba, during the pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that six witnesses of fact has been examined. He further submits that the applicant has been detained in jail for a period of more than two years, i.e. since 26.07.2023, seeing period of detention, he requests for grant of bail. He further submits that there is no chance of conclusion of trial in near future. He, therefore, prays that considering the period of detention as well as the status of the trial, which is not likely to be concluded in near future, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. He further submits that the applicant has no earlier criminal history, which has been explained in para 5 of the bail application and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. 5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. 6. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:- "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked." 7. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 8. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent. 9. 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. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she 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 reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 10. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused- applicant(s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the applicant for the alleged offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. 13. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 14. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Rahul. Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad