Allahabad High Court
Farooq Hasan 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. - 27339 of 2022
Applicant :- Farooq Hasan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Jaiswal
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. 227 of 2022, under Sections 395, 412 IPC, Police Station Bidhnoo, District Kanpur Nagar during pendency of the trial in the Court below.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. dated 14.05.2022 alleging that four persons sitting in a Scorpio vehicle had robbed a bag containing Rs.15,74,000/-. As per the prosecution case, on the basis of an information received from a Mukhir (informer), the Police had intercepted a WagonR Car and a Scorpio Car on 16.05.2022 and three persons were sitting in each of the vehicles. The applicant is said to have been sitting in one of the vehicles and it is alleged that a recovery of sum of Rs.1,57,000/- has been made from him. It is submitted that co-accused Vinay Ydav has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.8.2022 passed in Bail Application no.27495 of 2022.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is a law abiding person and he has no criminal history. The affidavit contains an undertaking that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no identification parade of the applicant has been carried out so as to connect him with the offence in question, yet the applicant is languishing in jail since 17-05-2022. He has submitted that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and he has submitted that a huge sum of money has been recovered from the applicant for which, there is no explanation.
7. 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."
8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and submissions and keeping in view the facts that the F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown persons and there is nothing on record to establish that the applicant has been identified by the informant as also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid case.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant Farooq Hasan, 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/-
