Gaurav Bansal(Gaurav Agrawal) vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 11381 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 70
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17617 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Gaurav Bansal(Gaurav Agrawal)
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Pandey,Deepak Dubey
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Mohit Singh learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Mr. Deepak Dubey learned counsel for complainant and perused the record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 54 of 2021 under Sections 384, 500, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Agra.

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant has allegedly sought to extort a certain amount of money from the complainant with the threat that in case the amount was not paid to him, he would defame the complainant in newspapers and social media since the applicant is a registered journalist.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that the applicant is a registered journalist and is only doing his duty in pointing out the ills of society particularly with regard to an alleged illegal construction being made by a company in which the informant is majority share holder. It is further submitted that a perusal of F.I.R. would indicate the date of incident as having occurred since 23rd May, 2021, whereas the news pertaining to alleged illegal construction has already been reported by the applicant in March, 2021 which is before the lodging of F.I.R. It is submitted that even otherwise the maximum punishment under the sections imputed against the applicant is only up to seven years. It is submitted that the applicant is applicant is languishing in jail since 31st March, 2022 and trial has not yet commenced. It is further submitted that the applicant has at all times cooperated with the investigation.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents have opposed the bail application with the submission that the applicant is a known extortionist and number of F.I.Rs. have already been lodged against him pertaining to the same allegation. It is further submitted that the informant is not a share holder of the company said to be involved in the alleged illegal construction and as such the applicant has clearly sought to defame the informant. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Yadav versus State of U.P. and another, 2022 (120) ACC 608 and the case of Meena Devi versus State of U.P. and another,2022 (120) ACC 631 to submit that the aspect of F.I.Rs having been lodged against the applicant pertaining to the same allegations is a necessary requirement to be seen at the time of consideration of bail application.

6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that maximum sentence under the provisions involved is of 7 years, the applicant is already languishing in jail since 31st March, 2022 and admittedly trial has not yet commenced. It is also undisputed that the applicant is a registered journalist with the news paper Punjab Kesari and the reports allegedly defaming the informant have been published in the newspapers. It is also not disputed that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation. So far as the criminal history of the applicant is concerned, it has already been explained in the affidavit filed in support of application indicating five F.I.Rs. having been registered against the applicant including the present and the applicant is already on bail in three cases.

7. So far as judgments relied upon by learned counsel for respondent is concerned, it is apparent from reading of the judgment in the case of Deepak Yadav (supra) that the conditions indicated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh, 2002 (45) ACC 45 have been considered with approval in which the conditions have already been indicated particularly with regard to not only nature of allegation but the severity of punishment also. It has also been held that severity in prosecution always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. It has also been held that in the event of their being some doubt as to genuineness of prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to in order of bail.

8. In the present case, the severity of punishment has already been indicated herein above, the nature of acquisition while serious is yet to be established in trial proceedings. It is trite that as per settled law, bail is the norm while rejection of bail is exception. Similar law has also been enunciated by Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi (supra).

9. 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."

10. 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.

11. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant, Gaurav Bansal(Gaurav Agrawal), 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 :- 29.8.2022

Prabhat