Allahabad High Court
Shane Alam vs State Of U.P. on 29 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34996 of 2022
Applicant :- Shane Alam
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1.Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court on behalf of applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 215 of 2022, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S. Sambhal, District Sambhal.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that one case in case crime No. 305 of 2021 has been shown against the applicant in the gang chart and the applicant is on bail in that case as stated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application. It is submitted that there is another case in case crime No. 307 of 2021 apart from case shown in the gang chart in which he has been released on bail. It is submitted that no other case is pending against the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 18.7.2022.
5. Learned counsel for applicant has drawn attention to the supplementary affidavit indicating that applicant is also enlarged on bail in another Case Crime No.306 of 2021, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Sambhal, District Sambhal vide order dated 09.08.2021 passed in Bail No.862 of 2021.
6. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the aforesaid factual situation.
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. In view of aforesaid submission and the fact that the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in all the cases lodged against him, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant Shane Alam 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
Subodh/-
