Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 23 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13773 of 2022
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Singh,Ram Govind
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 187 of 2021, under Sections 407, 418, 419, 420, 120-B, 468, 471, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Nayagaon, District Etah.
3. As per contents of FIR, the complainant had booked the applicant's truck for convey of food-grain. It is stated that despite endeavoring to make contact with the truck driver, wrong location was continuously provided to the complainant whereafter he came to know that the entire food-grain had been sold illegally and the truck in question was being modified in order to avoid identification.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that even from a perusal of the FIR, there is no specific allegation made against the applicant who although is the owner of truck but had no role in the booking process. It is submitted that the entire gist of allegations have been levelled against the truck driver and one Shiv Kumar. It is thus submitted that the applicant is being unnecessarily dragged into the controversy.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the applicant being the truck driver had vicarious liability towards the food-grain which were transported and as such is one of the co-accused in the matter.
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 parties and perusal of material available on record, prima facie, it appears subject to further evidence being led in trial that only allegation levelled against the applicant is that of being owner of the truck concerned. Although, he may have vicarious liability in the matter but nonetheless it is also admitted that the matter is triable by the Magistrate and applicant is in incarceration since 01.12.2021, therefore the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant,Manoj Kumar Yadav, 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 :- 23.8.2022
Subodh/-
