Allahabad High Court
Manav Goel vs State Of U.P. on 3 August, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21495 of 2021
Applicant :- Manav Goel
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhavya Sahai,Brijesh Sahai(Senior Adv.),Namman Raj Vanshi,Sachin Malik
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Namman Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record of the case.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, Manav Goel with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 232 of 2018, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Brahmpuri, District- Meerut, during pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with ulterior motive. In the gang chart four cases have been shown against the applicant. In Case Crime No.276 of 2015, under Sections 452, 427, 504, 506, IPC and Case Crime No.423 of 2015, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, IPC applicant has been acquitted by the court below vide judgment and orders dated 16.11.2019. Copies of the judgment and orders have been annexed as Annexure-3 & 4 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Apart from the aforesaid cases, the applicant has criminal history of two other cases i.e. case crime no.630 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, IPC and connected case crime no.638 of 2017, under Section 25/27 Arms Act and in both the cases applicant has also been acquitted by the court below vide judgment and order dated 8.4.2021, copy of the judgment and order dated 8.4.2021 has been annexed as Annexure-SA-1 to the affidavit. It has also been submitted that the applicant is not involved in any anti-social activities and he has been falsely implicated. The copy of the gang chart has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 30.10.2017, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but has not pointed out any other case against the applicant except the cases shown by learned counsel for the applicant.
It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of 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, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative" and considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
Let applicant, Manav Goel be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with 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.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 3.8.2021
T. Sinha
