In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another

Applicant :- Aniket Gaur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeja Srivastava,Pawan Gaur,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satish Kumar Tyagi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Neeja Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material available on record.

2. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 839 of 2024, under Sections 323, 376, 504, 506, 509 of I.P.C., Police Station - Kavi Nagar, District - Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

3. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

4. The FIR is delayed by about eight years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

5. It is a counter blast case to petition under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act filed by the applicant against the informant herein, which is pending before the concerned court as Complaint Case No.02 of 2024. The said case was filed on 18.06.2024 and the instant FIR has been instituted on 29.08.2024 regarding the incident dated 20.05.2016. The instant case is just misuse of the process of the court, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. Criminal history of two cases stands explained.

6. 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.

7. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.09.2024 deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/ STATE BY STATE LAW OFFICER:

8. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that two witnesses of fact have already been examined in chief i.e. PW1 and PW2 and they have not been cross-examined by the counsel for the applicant. If he is granted bail, the trial shall not move ahead. CONCLUSION:

9. 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.

10. 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 of criminal antecedent.

11. 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.

12. 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 reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

13. 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".

14. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

15. 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 State Law Officer.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, 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.

17. Let the applicant- Aniket Gaur, 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 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. (iii) The applicant shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment if and when witness is present.

18. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

19. 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 :- 13.2.2025 Priya (Justice Krishan Pahal) PRIYA KUSHWAHA PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Aniket Gaur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeja Srivastava,Pawan Gaur,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satish Kumar Tyagi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Neeja Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material available on record.

2. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 839 of 2024, under Sections 323, 376, 504, 506, 509 of I.P.C., Police Station - Kavi Nagar, District - Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

3. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

4. The FIR is delayed by about eight years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

5. It is a counter blast case to petition under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act filed by the applicant against the informant herein, which is pending before the concerned court as Complaint Case No.02 of 2024. The said case was filed on 18.06.2024 and the instant FIR has been instituted on 29.08.2024 regarding the incident dated 20.05.2016. The instant case is just misuse of the process of the court, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. Criminal history of two cases stands explained.

6. 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.

7. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.09.2024 deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/ STATE BY STATE LAW OFFICER:

8. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that two witnesses of fact have already been examined in chief i.e. PW1 and PW2 and they have not been cross-examined by the counsel for the applicant. If he is granted bail, the trial shall not move ahead. CONCLUSION:

9. 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.

10. 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 of criminal antecedent.

11. 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.

12. 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 reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

13. 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".

14. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

15. 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 State Law Officer.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, 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.

17. Let the applicant- Aniket Gaur, 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 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. (iii) The applicant shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment if and when witness is present.

18. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

19. 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 :- 13.2.2025 Priya (Justice Krishan Pahal) PRIYA KUSHWAHA PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad