Allahabad High Court
Susheel Kumar (Second Bail) vs State Of U.P. on 11 June, 2021
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- BAIL No. - 1070 of 2021
Applicant :- Susheel Kumar (Second Bail)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, through video conferencing in view of COVID-19 Pandemic and perused the record.
2. Second bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.115 of 2020, Under Sections 393, 307 IPC, Police Station Fatanpur, District Pratapgarh. The first bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Case No.9913 (B) of 2020, dismissed for want of prosecution, passed by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. vide order dated 07.01.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges and he was not named or identified in the first information report. It is submitted that even prior to or after his being taken into custody, there is no evidence to link him to the incident which is narrated in the first information report. Learned counsel submits that the applicant was also never identified in any identification parade by the eye witnesses to the incident. It is submitted that the narration of facts in the counter affidavit pertain to Case Crime No.117 of 2020, under Section 307 IPC and Case Crime No.118 of 2020, under Section 3/25 Arms Act in which the petitioner has already been admitted to bail. It is therefore submitted that there is no link of the applicant with the current first information report.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the basis of counter affidavit has denied the submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant with the submission that the applicants were identified on the basis of C.C.T.V. coverage in the ATM concerned and the applicant was subsequently apprehended in encounter, although, it is admitted that the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in the said case. Considering the aforesaid facts and particularly the fact applicant is not named in the FIR and his involvement in the incident in question is still to be established in the said proceedings.
5. 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."
6. 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.
7. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
8. Let applicant Susheel 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
Subodh/-
