Allahabad High Court
Suresh Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6389 of 2022
Applicant :- Suresh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shamshad Khan
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.299 of 2021 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Alambagh, District Lucknow.
3. As per contents of first information report, the applicant is alleged to have obtained overdraft facility amounting to Rs.22 lakh which was granted on 28.04.2016 on the basis of a work order allegedly issued by the Irrigation Department. It is stated that subsequently the account was declared non-performing asset and upon enquiry it was found that the work order allegedly issued by the Irrigation Department was forgery leading to filing of first information report.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the first information report is highly belated by five years having been lodged in the year 2021 with regard to an incident said to have occurred in the year 2016. It is submitted that even otherwise the matter is purely civil in nature and is unnecessarily being given criminal colour. It is also submitted that proceedings have already been initiated against the applicant before the Debt Recovery Tribunal with the filing of the Original Application No.962 of 2020 by the concerned Bank, i.e. the Union Bank of India in which the applicant has been arrayed as an opposite party whereunder the Bank is seeking recovery of approximately Rs.38 lakh. It is submitted that as such there was no occasion for the Bank to have filed the first information report. It has been submitted that although there are two Criminal Cases previously lodged against the applicant bearing Case Crime No.208 of 2006 under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C. and Case Crime No.111 of 2011 under Sections 406, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. but the applicant is on bail in the aforesaid two cases.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the fact that proceedings for recovery against the applicant are already pending consideration before the Debt Recovery Tribunal concerned.
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, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, at this stage and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that the entire dispute pertains to non-payment of over-draft facility availed of by the applicant from the Bank concerned for which purpose proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal are already pending consideration.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Suresh Kumar, 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 :- 27.6.2022
kvg/-
