Allahabad High Court
Satendra 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. - 23970 of 2022
Applicant :- Satendra Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Virendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for complainant is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for complainant and perused the record.
3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.285 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Lohamandi, District Agra.
4. As per contents of first information report, the applicant along with his wife has induced the informant to part with some money in order to get a sale-deed executed of certain landed property in the year 2014 but despite having taken such money, a sale-deed has promised has not been executed. It is further stated that upon demand being made by informant, the applicant gave cheques amounting to Rs.35,00,000/- but the same were dishonoured upon presentation.
5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR will make it evident that a purely civil transaction is being sought to be given a criminal colour. Even otherwise, it is submitted that there was no agreement between the parties with regard to execution of any sale-deed and as such also the allegations levelled against the applicant are clearly false in nature.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for complainant appearing has opposed the bail application with the submission that the contents of FIR clearly make out a case of cheating since the applicant has taken money for execution of sale-deed and has subsequently refused to execute the same.
7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, the allegations against the applicant are clearly of not having executed a sale-deed even after obtaining the sale consideration. The allegations prima facie, subject to further evidence being led in trial, appear to be purely civil in nature. It is also admitted by learned counsel for complainant upon instructions that no suit either for specific performance or even for recovery of money has been instituted.
8. 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."
9. 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.
10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
11. Let applicant, Satendra 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
Subodh/-
