Allahabad High Court
Ashish Yadav @ Raju Yadav vs State Of Up Thru Its Secretary Home on 31 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12641 of 2022
Applicant :- Ashish Yadav @ Raju Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of Up Thru Its Secretary Home
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar
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.378 of 2021, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bindaki, District Fatehpur.
3. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have occurred on 16.10.2021 when a police party attempted to stop vehicle for the purposes of search and were fired upon by the occupants of the vehicle including the applicant who was apprehended from the spot along with recovery of various fire arms and cartridges. The FIR states that the applicant alongwith another person were apprehended after a chase and ensuing gun fight in which the applicant was injured.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that even otherwise there is no independent witness of the entire sequence of events. It is also submitted that only one expended cartridge was recovered although the FIR alleges continuous firing between the parties. It is further submitted that with regard to same incident, the applicant has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.04.2022 passed in bail application no.11670 of 2022. It has further been submitted that the entire narration in the FIR is false and concocted. It has also been submitted that no identification parade was conducted by the police authorities. The previous criminal history against the applicant has also been explained in the supplementary affidavit.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that applicant was apprehended from the spot and a large cashe of arms and remuneration were also recovered from applicant possession. He however does not deny that the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in a related Case Crime No.365 of 2021 as well as in case crime no.377 of 2021 under sections 307, 504, 506 IPC by this Court in bail no.11401 of 2022 pertaining to the said incident.
6. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it is evident that the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime pertaining to the same incident. Prima facie and subject to evidence being led, there does not appear to be any independent witness of the alleged encounter that has taken place. The criminal history has also been explained in the supplementary affidavit.
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, Ashish Yadav @ Raju Yadav, 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 :- 31.8.2022
Subodh/-
