Allahabad High Court
Narayan 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. - 15133 of 2022
Applicant :- Narayan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitdendra Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and 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. 805 of 2019 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 471 IPC, P.S. Cantt. District Lalpur Pandeypur.
3. As per contents of FIR registered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it has been alleged that the agricultural property bearing plot No. 169/3 having an area of 157.99 square metre has been sold to the complainant by the applicant by executing a registered sale deed in her favour on 8th February, 2017 although the applicant was not recorded owner of the property in question.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that F.I.R. is also highly belated by more than two years since the date of execution of sale deed is 8th February, 2017 while the F.I.R. has been registered on 15th June, 2019. Learned counsel submits that even as per the khatauni for the year 1377 to 1379 fasli, the applicant is shown as being recorded over the property in question as minor. It is submitted that as such the allegations made against the applicant on the face of it are against the record.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that copy of khatauni annexed to the bail application is a subject matter of evidence being led at the trial.
6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced and perusal of material on record, prima facie and subject to evidence being led in trial, it appears that the transaction is purely civil in nature which is sought to be given a criminal colour. Learned counsel for applicant has also drawn attention to the copy of khatauni indicating applicant's name as recorded over the property in question.
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. 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.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Narayan, 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
