Allahabad High Court
Arvind 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. - 31788 of 2022
Applicant :- Arvind
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sujeet Kumar,Amit Kumar Shukla
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.0235 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Sections 3, 6, 9, 10 Examination Act, Echotech IIIrd, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. As per contents of first information report, the applicant is said to have submitted a forged caste certificate in order to gain leverage on account of his being short in height.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the F.I.R. is based only on assumptions and surmises. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the first information report will make it evident that there is no reason indicated therein to deem the caste certificate submitted by applicant to be a forged document. It is submitted that the F.I.R. even otherwise is based only on the alleged confession of applicant which even otherwise is inadmissible as evidence.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the factual aspects of the case.
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, at this stage, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that no enquiry whatsoever has been conducted in order to ascertain the veracity of caste certificate and the first information report appears to have been lodged only on the basis of alleged confession made by the applicant before extra judicial authorities, as such, 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 Arvind, 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/-
