Allahabad High Court
Saddam vs State Of U.P. on 28 June, 2021
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- BAIL No. - 6434 of 2021
Applicant :- Saddam
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pravin Singh,Shailendra Singh Rajawat
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite party and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 12 of 2021 under Section 3/5/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and under section 7 of C.L. Act, Police Station Shivgarh, District Raebareli.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that there is no independent witness with regard to the alleged recovery said to have been made from the applicant. Learned counsel for petitioner has denied the very incident and the involvement of applicant in the said case. It has also been submitted that earlier also the applicant was falsely implicated in three criminal cases i.e. case crime No. 530 of 2015 under section 3/5A/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and under Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, case crime No. 192 of 2018 under Section 3/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Maharajganj, District Raebareli and case crime No. 618 of 2019 under section 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and under Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, P.S. Bachhrawan, District Raebareli in which he was enlarged on bail. It is submitted that the the offence alleged against the applicant are triable by Magistrate and the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.01.2021.
4.Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that a bare perusal of the FIR, the offence alleged is clearly made out and therefore the applicant is not entitled to enlarge on bail.
5. Considering the aforesaid factors and submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, at this stage, it appears that there is no independent witness indicated for his recovery alleged to have been made against the applicant. The offences are also triable by magistrate and the applicant is in jail since January, 2021. In earlier cases also, the applicant has been enlarged on bail in two of the cases while his name was excluded in the charge sheet with regard to application indicated herein above.
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, Saddam, 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.
Order Date :- 28.6.2021
prabhat
