—
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:1949
Court No. – 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 54584 of 2023
Applicant :- Subash Banvasi And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharm Jeet Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicants filed supplementary affidavit in the Court today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Dharm Jeet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the materials on record.
3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Subash Banvasi and Chhote Lal Banvasi @ Chhote with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.57 of 2022, under Section 457, 380, 411, 413 and 414 I.P.C., Police Station?Nagra, District?Ballia, during pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with an ulterior motive. The applicants have not been named in the FIR. While carrying out investigation in some other case, the applicants were confronted by the police persons on 09.09.2022 and has been falsely implicated in the present case showing false recovery. He further submits that a false recovery has been shown and the said recovery is a planted one and there is no independent witness to the same. The co-accused persons namely Deepak Verma @ Monu, Sunil Verma and Ranjeet Kumar Verma have already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by orders dated 09.12.2022, 21.11.2022 and 09.12.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.50799 of 2022, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49277 of 2022 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.50353 of 2022, respectively. The criminal history of the applicants have been explained in the paragraph nos.3 to 17 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicants are languishing in jail since 09.09.2022. 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 applicants fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants by contending that the innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicants are released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, they could not dispute the fact that the co-accused person has already been released on 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, (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 applicants are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 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 A.G.A. has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicants.
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-applicants is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness.
11. The Apex Court in R.D. Upadhyay Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1996 (3) SCC 422, has observed as under :-
“So far as the cases regarding attempt to murder are concerned, we direct that the cases which are pending for more than 2 years, the under-trials shall be released on bail forthwith to the satisfaction of the respective trial courts. Persons facing trial for Kidnapping, Theft, Cheating, Arms Act, Counterfeiting, Custom, Under Section 326 IPC, Under Section 324 IPC, Riots and Under Section 354 IPC who are in jail for a period of more than one year, shall, be released on bail forthwith to the satisfaction of the trial courts concerned. There may be cases where the under-trial persons may not be in a position to furnish sureties etc. In those cases, the trial courts may consider-keeping in view the facts of each case especially the period spent in jail-releasing them on bail by furnishing persons bonds.”
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the applicants for the alleged offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
13. Let the applicants 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 applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
(vii) In the event, the applicants changes residential address, the applicants shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.
14. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
15. 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 :- 4.1.2024
Kalp Nath Singh