Allahabad High Court
Akhilesh Singh vs State Of U.P. on 30 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29579 of 2022
Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Noor Ahmed,Zafar Abbas
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sanjiv Singh learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Singh learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Mr. Zafar Abbas learned counsel for complainant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 345 of 2021 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 406, 409 IPC, P.S. Lalpur/Pandeypur, District Varanasi.
3. As per contents of FIR, the informant was introduced to the applicant and her mother by co-accused Abhishek Singh and Jitendra Kumar Singh with the promise that property in question would be sold to the informant by applicant and his mother whereafter a duplex apartment would be constructed on the same by other co-accused. The F.I.R. states that in pursuance thereof, sale consideration was paid by informant whereafter the applicant's mother executed a registered sale deed dated Ist February, 2019 with regard to plot No. 83 having an area of 1032 square feet. The F.I.R. states that despite execution of sale deed, duplex apartment as promised has not seen light of day due to which informant has been swindled by the applicant and co-accused.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that no offence is made out against applicant particularly since he and his mother have already made good on their promise by executing the sale deed registered on Ist February, 2019. As such it is submitted that any violation of promise made to the informant is only on the part of other two co-accused instead of applicant and his mother. It is submitted that even otherwise a purely civil dispute is being given criminal colour. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the effect that applicant's mother, Smt. Chinta Devi alias Chinta Singh has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 4th February 2022 passed in Criminal Misc.Anticipatory bail application No. 7069 of 2022. It is submitted that the applicant and his mother have already entered into compromise with the informant and in pursuance thereof a sum of Rs. 25 lacs has already been paid to the informant on 22nd August, 2022 and further a sum of Rs. 13 lacs would be paid to the informant by means of post dated cheque dated 3rd September, 2022.
5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the bail application but the learned counsel for complainant upon instructions admits a compromise having taken place between the parties in terms of which an outstanding amount of Rs. 13 lacs still requires to be paid to the informant by the post dated cheque dated 3rd September, 2022. He does not object to the bail being granted subject to such condition being fulfilled. It has also been submitted that the compromise itself indicates that despite execution of the registered sale deed, possession over the plot in question could not be handed over to the informant as a result of which the compromise has been entered into between the parties.
6. Considering aforesaid submissions and upon perusal of material on record, it appears that only role assigned to the applicant and his mother was that of execution of sale deed with regard to a non agricultural plot and in pursuance thereof, a sale deed has also been executed and registered on Ist February, 2019 although possession thereof is disputed by learned counsel for complainant. However since learned counsel for parties upon instructions admit that the parties have entered into compromise and learned counsel for complainant does not object to the bail being granted subject to conditions of compromise being fulfilled, a case for grant of bail is made out.
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 Akhilesh Singh 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 :- 30.8.2022
Prabhat
