Allahabad High Court
Ashu vs State Of U.P. on 25 February, 2019
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8009 of 2019
Applicant :- Ashu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sheetal Prasad Chakaravarty, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Ashu with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 427 of 2018, under Sections 366, 376D I.P.C., Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is said to have married with co-accused Farman, the friend of the applicant The victim and co-accused Farman approached this Court seeking protection by way of filing Writ C No. 9147 of 2018 (Smt. Rizwana and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) in which protection was granted vide order dated 13.03.2018. Thereafter, F.I.R., was lodged which was challenged by the victim along with two others by means of a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7050 of 2018 (Rizwana and two others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) and the Division Bench of this Court had granted protection till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., along with a direction for medical examination of the victim as well as recording her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. copy of the orders are annexed as Annexure-7 and 8 respectively to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. Thereafter, the medical examination of the victim was conducted and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., were recorded and in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has accepted that she solemnised marriage with the co-accused Farman and the applicant, who is the friend of Farman was helping in their relations on account of which, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on false and frivolous allegations. There is no criminal history of the applicant that that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 26.09.2018.
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.
Learned counsel for the first informant has also vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
The Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 has held that it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. Seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor : The other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019
S.Ali
