Allahabad High Court
Narendra 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. - 29814 of 2022
Applicant :- Narendra Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Kumar Singh
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. 139 of 2022 under sections 379, 411 IPC, P.S. Jalesar, District Etah.
3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have occurred on 11th May, 2022 when the informant found his mobile phone of the Techno Company missing. The F.I.R. has been lodged against 3-4 unknown persons.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that in the recovery memo said to have been made on 16th May, 2022, only two mobile phones are said to have been recovered from the applicant's person which do not corroborate with the stolen mobile. It is submitted that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery having been made at the behest of informant. It is further submitted that the criminal history of applicant has already been explained in paragraph 16 of the application and that the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in the connected case crime No. 140 of 2022 vide order dated 6th August, 2022 passed in bail application No. 32953 of 2022 and the order dated 2nd August, 2022 passed in bail application No. 30783 of 2022 pertaining to case crime No. 137 of 2022.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of Statee has opposed the bail application.
6. Considering aforesaid submissions and upon perusal of material on record, it appears subject to further evidence being led that the recovery made from the applicant is not pertained to the mobile said to have been stolen as per F.I.R. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery having been made. The applicnt has also been enlarged on bail by this court in case crime numbers mentioned herein above pertaining to the same allegations.
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 Narendra 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
