Allahabad High Court
Rizwan @ Rizwan Ali vs State Of U.P. on 14 July, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16056 of 2021
Applicant :- Rizwan @ Rizwan Ali
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record.
Heard Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Rizwan @ Rizwan Ali seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0109 of 2021, under Sections 420 IPC and Section 15(2), 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, P.S. Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
As per prosecution story, on 16.02.2021, Medical Superintendent, CHC, Dadari through Social Media came to know that in Gopal Pathology Lab situated near Central Bank of India, GT Road, Dadari, free vaccination of Corona virus of general public is going on and thereafter the matter was informed to superior officer and the same was inquired by Dr Sanjeev Kumar and Drug Inspector Baghpat, who inspected the said Lab and found that a free corona vaccination camp was being organized with the help of Nari Raksha Dal on the spot and a banner to this effect was also found on the spot. It is further stated that when the investigating authorities entered into the Lab, the applicant was seen injecting the vaccine and on query, it is informed that he and other accused persons named in the FIR are employee of the Flores Hospital, who have been authorized by the Hospital for vaccination but when the Inspecting team demanded the paper to this effect, no paper in this regard could be produced.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that the applicant is a student of fourth Semester of M.Sc. Clinical Research studying in Institute of Himgiri Zee University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. It is further submitted that the course of M.Sc, Clinical Research is running by University, under the supervision of Institute of Clinical Research India (ICRI). It is further submitted that the applicant has been sent for internship at Flores Hospital, Ghaziabad with the consent of ICRI. It is further submitted that no role of applicant has been assigned either in the FIR or in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
It is further submitted that the alleged FIR has not described the correct position of the case because there was no free vaccination of corona virus despite free clinical trial was going on by the Chairman of Drug Controller General of India, Licensing Authority. The applicant has neither violated the clinical trails rules nor committed any offence by getting the volunteers convinced of vaccination in clinical trial. It is further submitted that at the Gopal Pathology Lab signature of the volunteers on the consent letter for clinical trial vaccination has been obtained and nothing has been concealed in getting agreed the volunteers for vaccination and as such no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. It is further submitted that from the allegations made in the FIR no offence under Section 15(2) and 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act is made out against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 17.02.2021. Co-accused Sudhakar Yadav has been enlarged on bail by this Court on 22.6.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16575 of 2021 and the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
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. Bal Chandra (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, Rizwan @ Rizwan Ali 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-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
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 :- 14.7.2021
T. Sinha
