Allahabad High Court
Ashutosh Tiwari 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. - 33062 of 2022
Applicant :- Ashutosh Tiwari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Pathak,Abhishek Shekhar Ojha,Anubhav Anand Pandey,Harshit Pathak
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.Case Crime No. 11 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 66D I.T. Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Bareilly, during pendency of trial.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the informant was subjected to cyber crime by fraud amount of Rs.two lakh has been syphoned off. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that no money has been received to the account of the applicant or in the account of the Trust. Rs.438/- and Rs.1239/- were received by the informant from the account of the applicant and as such no offence can be said to be made out. There is no material before the Investigating Authority to connect the applicant in the present crime. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that co-accused Jaydev Dey and Akshat D. Kushwaha have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 30.3.2022 and 06.08.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications Numbered 11480 of 2022 and 32966 of 2022 respectively. The case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.5.2022. It is stated that the applicant has no criminal history.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail applicationbut does not dispute the claim of parity.
5. 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. 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,without expressing any opinion on the merits of case,this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
8. Let applicant Ashutosh Tiwari, 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
kvg/-
