Allahabad High Court
Mushtaque Khan @ Bagghe 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. - 1115 of 2021
Applicant :- Mushtaque Khan @ Bagghe
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Singh
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. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 425 of 2019, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Phool Behad, District-Kheri
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges alleged against him in the first information report. It is submitted that out of four persons, the charge-sheet has been submitted only against the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant was only a labourer and has no concern with the purchase and distribution of food-grain. Learned counsel further submits that the matter is triable by Magistrate and the applicant has already been in custody since 08.10.2020. It is further submitted that even charges have not yet been framed in the trial and the matter is purely civil in nature.
4.Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the applicant is the Centre Incharge and not a labourer as is being claimed and has therefore involved in the matter.
5. Considering the aforesaid factors and submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, it appears that the nature of charges against the applicant are civil in nature and learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no fear of his absconding.
6. 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."
7. 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.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant, Mushtaque Khan @ Bagghe, 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/-
