Allahabad High Court
Smt Imrana 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. - 33978 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt Imrana
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh,Ratish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhiraj Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Mr.Vikash Chauhan, Advocate holding brief for Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for complainant.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.633 of 2021, under Sections 420,467,468,471,323,354,504,506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that a perusal of the first information report will make it evident that allegation has been levelled against the applicant with regard to fact that she has sold the property in dispute by means of a registered sale-deed dated 01.10.2021 a part of which is being claimed by the complainant as well. It is submitted that the FIR also indicates that allegation has been levelled about the applicant's registered sale-deed being a forgery. It is however submitted that the vendee of the registered sale-deed executed by applicant have never raised any dispute with regard to the said sale-deed and even otherwise no civil litigation is pending between the parties pertaining to the said property although the complainant has a remedy of filing a civil suit with regard to her grievance. It is submitted that only a criminal colour is being sought to be given to the civil dispute.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for informant has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the fact that dispute between the parties pertains to the fact that applicant has granted possession to co-accused and executed the sale-deed dated 01.10.2021 over the property which has not been challenged by the complainant in Civil Litigation.
5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, prima facie subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature although the complainant has not availed himself of any such civil remedy. Even as per the contents of first information report, there appears to be a registered sale-deed executed by the applicant which is unchallenged pertaining to disputed property.
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."
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 the bail application is allowed.
8. Let applicant,Smt Imrana, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her 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 her 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 her, 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 her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 22.8.2022
Subodh/-
