Vinod Kumar vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 6156 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- BAIL No. - 7437 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Vinod Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pooja Singh,Avadhesh Mishra,Prashant Singh Atal,Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Shivendra Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,D.P. Dutt Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for opposite party.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 194 of 2018, under Sections 364-A, 120-B IPC, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District Faizabad.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant who is in jail since 20th April, 2018 has been falsely implicated in the matter and he has nothing to do with the abduction of the child Deepanshu. It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report nor is there any recovery from him. It is submitted that the name of the applicant was included only upon the statement made under section 164 Cr.Pc. by the main accused Anil Kumar. Learned counsel submits that there is no prima facie evidence linking the applicant with the crime. It has been further submitted that as yet the trial is only at the preliminary stage with only two out of ten witnesses having completed their depositions.

4. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of opposite party/State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the applicant has been arrested on the basis of the statement of main accused Anil Kumar under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which the applicant has clearly been implicated. Learned A.G.A. has also drawn attention to the statement of the child who was abducted to indicate that the main accused Anil Kumar was referring to the co-accused as Vinod Singh who is the applicant herein. As such it is submitted that there is no occasion to enlarge the applicant on bail.

5. As per the report submitted by the court concerned on 6th February, 2020, the trial court is as yet only at the preliminary stage with deposition of only P.W.1 having been completed whereas there are 20 witnesses to be examined.

6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and after perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant was not named in the first information report and his name has appeared only after the statement made by the main accused Anil Kumar under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Prima facie as of now there does not appear to be any evidence on record linking the applicant with the crime that he is accused although the matter is to be established in the trial court proceedings.

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant, Vinod Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following 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 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.

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

(vi) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court of Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

(vii) Difficulty arising in arranging of sureties because of lock down has already been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.564 of 2020. Directions issued therein shall be applicable in the present case which are as follows:-

"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."

Order Date :- 11.6.2021

prabhat