Allahabad High Court
Chandan Kumar Mahto vs State Of U.P. on 22 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34877 of 2022
Applicant :- Chandan Kumar Mahto
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Giri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.106/2022, under Sections 406, 420, 411 IPC, P.S. Vishnupura, District Kushinagar.
3. As per contents of first information report,which has been filed against unnamed persons, the incident is said to have occurred on 09.05.2022 at about 10.30 A.M. when the informant had gone to withdraw money from the Bank whereafter it is stated that three unknown persons gave an offer to her to exchange her Rs.38,000/- with Rs.3,00,000/-. It is stated that subsequently aforesaid three persons came and took the informant's money but did not thereafter turn up for concluding the exchange.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that a bare perusal of the first information report makes the absurdity of the story evident. It is further submitted that even the recovery memo annexed as Annexure-5 does not indicate any link between the applicant and the story as narrated in the first information report. It is submitted that the recovery memo merely indicates a live .315 bore cartridge along with local fire arms and Rs.4,055/- having been recovered along with a mobile phone from the person of the applicant but the same is completely unrelated to the contents of the first information report. It is further submitted that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the applicant was identified by the informant from the CCTV coverage. However, they do not have instructions as to how any link between story indicated in the F.I.R. and the recovery memo is established.
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. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is not evident as to how the recovery allegedly made from the person of applicant is linked to the story indicated in the first information report. The submission that there are no independent witnesses are also prima facie borne out although subject to further evidence being led in trial. At this stage, prima facie, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Chandan Kumar Mahto, 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 :- 22.8.2022
kvg/-
