Allahabad High Court
Riyaz Ali @ Sonu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 1 July, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7098 of 2022
Applicant :- Riyaz Ali @ Sonu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nijam Ahamad
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.58 of 2022, under Sections 420 IPC and 66, 66-B, 66-C Information Technology Act, Police Station - Sammanpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar.
3. As per contents of first information report, one Udaybhan Verma and Sanjeev Rajbhar named in the FIR are alleged to have stolen the ATM card and mobile sim of the complainant and utilizing the same, they have withdrawn a major portion of savings of the complainant. It has been stated that the persons named in the FIR thereafter should not be found but utilizing the ATM card regular withdraws have been made from the account of the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which is evident from the fact that he is not named in the FIR but has been included during investigation only on account of alleged confessional statement of the persons named in the FIR as well as his own confessional statement made before the police, which even otherwise is inadmissible as evidence. It is further submitted that there is no recovery effected from the applicant.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the basis of instructions has opposed the bail application with the submissions that the applicant was in touch with the persons named in the FIR and although certain recovery has been effected from the applicant but same does not pertain to the present case.
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. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, at this stage and subject to further evidence being led, the alleged recovery effected from the applicant also does not pertain to the present case crime.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant - Riyaz Ali @ Sonu, 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.
(Manish Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 1.7.2022
KR
