Allahabad High Court
Amar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 29 July, 2022
Bench: Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24516 of 2022
Applicant :- Amar Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi,Gaurav Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lalit Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 190 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station - Tajganj, District - Agra with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
The allegation in the FIR against present accused Amar Singh and Nabbi is that Rs. 2.75 lakhs were taken illegally by the present accused from the informant showing a land to sell out to the informant, which does not belong to co-accused Nabbi.
The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that a written agreement was executed between the parties and the present applicant was only a witness to the alleged written agreement, a copy of which is on page No. 17 onward to the affidavit of this bail application. It is further submitted that a civil dispute has been turned by the informant into a criminal proceeding just to put an illegal pressure on the applicant. It is further submitted that the offence is triable by the court of magistrate and the punishment is below seven years' imprisonment. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is in jail since 07.05.2022 and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
In the Case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 the Apex Court has held that the court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.
Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let applicant Amar Singh involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
(1). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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;
(2). 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;
(3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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 may initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(4). 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 29.7.2022
LBY
