Allahabad High Court
Kharanga @ Mohan Das vs State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 30
Case :- BAIL No. - 1254 of 2021
Applicant :- Kharanga @ Mohan Das
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar,Y.P.Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
The case is called out.
Heard learned counsel for the bail-applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application is filed on behalf of the accused-applicant-Kharanga @ Mohan Das, who is involved in Case Crime No.95 of 2020, under Sections 380/457/411 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Sadullah Nagar, District Balrampur.
The occasion of present bail application has arisen on rejection of bail plea of applicant by Incharge Session Judge, Balrampur vide order dated 07.12.2020. A copy of the bail application has already been received in the office of learned G.A.
Learned counsel on reading over the first information report submits that as per prosecution story, it is stated that there is a Ram Janki Temple in front of house of complainant where deities of Ram Janki, Laxman and Hanuman Ji are installed alongwith other deities. The priest used to worship in the said temple, whereas on 24.08.2020, after the night prayer, the priest-Balak Ram closed the door of the temple and went his house. On next morning, at about 05:00 A.M., when the priest arrived at temple, he found that the doors were opened and the lock was broken, moreover, the deities of Ram Janki, Laxman and Hanuman Ji were not present there. On seeing this, the priest informed about the incident to the informant.
In the above context, learned counsel submits that over the information provided by the informer, the police arrested the applicant alongwith other co-accused on 27.08.2020 and recovered one deity of Shri Ram (in black polythene). Learned counsel further submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of applicant. The applicant is Sadhu who went to Ayodhya, arrested by the Police of Sadhulla Nagar Police Station, District Balrampur and the police has implicated him falsely as he was the earlier priest of the said temple.
Learned counsel further submits that the police has not shown a singly public witness in support of the above case, there is no evidence that the recovered article belongs to the informant and the accused-applicant is languishing in jail since 28.08.2020 for no fault on his part. Learned counsel further submits that the accused-applicant is local resident of the area, is a common man, is not in a position to flee away from the process of the Court, is a law abiding person, having no criminal history, therefore, when he is willing to face the trial, as the offence is triable by the magistrate, he deserves to be granted bail.
Learned A.G.A. protesting the bail-application submits that the accused-applicant is involved in the offence, therefore, accused-applicant is not innocent, however, he submits that the investigation has already been concluded. So far as the charge sheet with regard to the offence made out against the accused applicant is submitted before the trial.
Keeping into mind the valuable right of personal liberty and the fundamental principle not to disbelieve a person to be innocent unless held guilty and if he is not arraigned with the charge of an offence for which the law has put on him a reverse burden of proving his innocence as, held in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the bail-applicant to enlarge him on bail.
Let applicant (Kharanga @ Mohan Das) involved in Case Crime No.95 of 2020, under Sections 380/457/411 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Sadullah Nagar, District Balrampur be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(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 misuse 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 applicants 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 :- 2.2.2021
Saurabh
