Sushil Sharan Das Chela Tribhuwan ... vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 10055 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- BAIL No. - 7057 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Sushil Sharan Das Chela Tribhuwan Das
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Alok Saran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The applicant has sought for bail in Case Crime No.523 of 2019, under Sections 471, 467, 468, 420, 419 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, District Faizabad.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per prosecution story, the complainant is the present Mahant and Sarbarahkar of Dadiya Mandir and Betiya Mandir but in order to usurp the Betiya Temple, the accused applicant and other co-accused person Gunjan Das are making continuous efforts. The co-accused Gunjan Das had given a complaint to the Hon'ble Chief Minister in which an inquiry was conducted. It is also averred in the FIR that the name of accused applicant and his Guru Tribhuwan Das was not recorded in the revenue record with regard to the Betiya Temple but in collusion with the revenue officials, the name of Tribhuwan Das was recorded in the revenue record. The said entry was found forged in the inquiry conducted by the Nayab Tehsildar, Ayodhya.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the averments made in the FIR is concocted and baseless. There is no material which connect the applicant in the said crime. The instant FIR has been lodged with mala fide intention. It is alleged in the first information report that in collusion with the officials of revenue and Nagar Nigam, the accused applicant has committed fraud and forgery in the revenue records and in the record of Nagar Nigam but there is no complaint against them which itself shows that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.

It has also been submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that the entire dispute relates to Sarbarahkari of the temple in question and the same is purely civil in nature. There is no chance of absconding and tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The applicant has not previously convicted and is in jail since 20.02.2020. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and in case, he is released on bail, he will abide by all the conditions as imposed by this Court and shall co-operate with the trial.

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the applicant has a criminal history of 16 cases but inspite of disclosing the same, the applicant has stated in para 17 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is not a previous convict. Most of the cases relate Arms Act, Goondas Act, NDPS Act and Section 302, 307, 354, 410, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The applicant has filed the instant bail application concealing the aforesaid material facts of criminal history which is also evident in para (vi) of the bail rejection order dated 17.03.2020. There is specific allegation against the applicant and in the inquiry the forged entry was proved.

I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay vs Sudarshan Singh; (2002) 3 SCC 598, it has been clearly laid down that the grant of bail though involves exercise of discretionary power of the Court, such exercise of discretion has to be made in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The heinous nature of crimes warrants more caution as there is a greater chance of rejection of bail though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.

In the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati vs NCT of Delhi; (2001) 4 SCC 280, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles:-

"(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs State of U.P. and another; (2014) 16 SCC 508 on the point of criminal antecedents of the accused is also a guiding factor which has to be considered by the Court while considering the bail application of the accused and has drawn the attention of the Court towards para-18 of the said judgment which is quoted hereinbelow:-

"First, we shall dwell upon the criminal antecedents. The appellant, the real victim, being the wife of the deceased, has annexed a chart relating to the criminal history of the accused. The State has filed a counter affidavit. We think it apt to refer to the cases which find place in the counter affidavit filed by the state. Be it clarified though it has been filed as a counter affidavit, it is not in oppugnation of the prayer sought in the petition. On the contrary, it is supportive of the stand put forth in the petition. It has been asseverated that the respondent no.2 is a history-sheeter and number of cases have been lodged against him......

In the reply filed by the respondent no.2 contended, inter alia, that he has been acquitted in certain case. However, in the course of hearing, we have been apprised that most of the cases instituted against the respondent no.2 are still pending and some of them are under Section 302 IPC and other heinous offences."

In case of Ash Mohammad vs Shiv Raj Singh; (2012) 9 SCC 446, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

"17. We are absolutely conscious that liberty of a person should not be lightly dealt with, for deprivation of liberty of a person has immense impact on the mind of a person. Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of vacuum. Needless to emphasize, the sacrosanctity of liberty is paramount in a civilized society. However, in a democratic body polity which is wedded to Rule of Law an individual is expected to grow within the social restrictions sanctioned by law. The individual liberty is restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation must have due sanction of law. In an orderly society an individual is expected to live with dignity having respect for law and also giving due respect to others' rights. It is a well accepted principle that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one. The cry of the collective for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialized.

The life of an individual living in a society governed by Rule of Law has to be regulated and such Regulations which are the source in law subserve the social balance and function as a significant instrument for protection of human rights and security of the collective. It is because fundamentally laws are made for their obedience so that every member of the society lives peacefully in a society to achieve his individual as well as social interest. That is why Edmond Burke while discussing about liberty opined, "it is regulated freedom".

It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. The prospect of greater justice requires that law and order should prevail in a civilized milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organized society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquility and safety which every well-meaning person desires.

Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties and after carefully going through the materials available on record, it appears that the applicants have played a vital role in making forgery in the revenue record in order to usurp the property of a temple. The applicant is also involved in certain heinous crimes. In the FIR, there is specific role against the applicant that he along with other co-accused not only made forged entry in the revenue record but also in the record of the Nagar Nigam. The applicant is habitual offender. If he is released on bail, certainly, he shall influence the witnesses of the trial.

Without detailed examination of evidence on record and elaborate discussions on merits of the case, but considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, availability of prima facie case against the applicant, the severity of punishment in case of conviction and taking into account the reasonable apprehension of the applicants in tampering with the evidence and above all in the larger interest of society, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application sans merit and hence stands rejected.

Observations made hereinabove is exclusively for deciding the instant bail application and shall not affect the trial in any manner.

However, court below is directed to make an earnest endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year.

Order Date :- 11.8.2021

akverma