Allahabad High Court
Samad vs State Of U.P. on 20 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40578 of 2022
Applicant :- Samad
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kesh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nasira Adil
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, Ms. Amreen Mansoor, Advocate holding brief for Ms. Nasira Adil, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.140 of 2021 under Sections 363, 302, 201 IPC, P.S Pawai, District Azamgarh.
3. The prosecution case is that a first information report under Section 366 IPC was lodged on 08.10.2021 on the written application of Abdul Mannan, wherein it was alleged that on 07.10.2021 at about 06.30 PM, Mohd. Adnan aged about four years, maternal grandson of informant, is missing near his house. He was searched out but his whereabouts could not be traced out. During the course of investigation, dead body was recovered and Section 302, 201 IPC were added. The complicity of the accused-applicant came into light in the further statement of informant Abdul Mannan recorded on 07.12.2021.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to political rivalry of the election of Pradhan. He is not named in the first information report. He was also not named by the informant and other witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. His name has first come on the further statement of informant Abdul Mannan recorded on 07.12.2021, which only shows suspicion. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the applicant or on his pointing out. There is no cogent evidence against the applicant and also there is no eye witness account and the case is based only on circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete. No motive has been assigned to the applicant.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application.
6. 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."
7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that applicant has not been named in the F.IR. which even otherwise has been filed against unknown persons and his name has been introduced on the third additional statement of first informant Abdul Mannan, which also only indicates suspicion. There does not appear to be any recovery from applicant or at his instance. There is no eye witness account and at this stage, there does not appear to be any credible evidence against applicant who also does not have any previous criminal history but is under incarceration since 04.03.2022 with only charge-sheet having been filed. Co-accused Eklakh Ahmad @ Jokhu and Anwar Ahmad have been admitted to bail by coordinate Benches of this Court vide Bail Applications numbered 8657 of 2022 and 38167 of 2022 respectively. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Samad 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 :- 20.12.2022
kvg/-
