Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 15 July, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19343 of 2021
Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Keshari Nath Tripathi,Vivek Jaiswal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Rakesh Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 101 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., and Section 3/9 Examination Act, 1982, Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad during pendency of trial.
It is admittedly submitted that in the present case first information report has been lodged against three persons including applicant. As per the prosecution version on 31.01.2021 in the Aryans International School 420 candidates were given examination of C-TET-2021, after started examination invigilator of Room No.103 informed that the photo of the candidate of Roll No.204020402 could not matched with his face, but there is no identification report has been collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation. There is no material on record has been collected with regard to the identification of the candidate/applicant. It is further submitted that there is no recovery of any Admit Card or Aadhaar Card from the possession of the applicant. The alleged recovery has been planted by the employees of school concern and there is no independent and public witness of the alleged incident. It is next contended that the applicant resides in Delhi along-with his brother and he had gone to Moradabad and in the way there is some children were quarreling at that time the police concern reached at the spot and caught to them included applicant and also bring to police station, on that time the first informant reached to the police station and has falsely been implicated to the applicant in the present case for saving his person and school staff with collusion of police concern. He next submitted that applicant is not arrested from the school. It is further submitted that there is no criminal antecedent to his credit. 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 31.01.2021, 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 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. 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 Rakesh Kumar 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 along-with 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 :- 15.7.2021
Ishan
