Allahabad High Court
Reshidh Srivastava vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 28 June, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6853 of 2022
Applicant :- Reshidh Srivastava
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar (Singh),Abhishek Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State.
3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.923 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered in Police Station Madiaon, District Lucknow.
4. As per contents of FIR, the persons named therein are alleged to have procured Home Loan Financing by submitting false and fabricated documents. It is being stated that there is a gang which deals in the manufacturing of identity cards for the purposes of obtaining such loans from Banks.
5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant has not been named in the first information report and his name has been included during investigation only on the basis of alleged confessional statement after a period of more than two and half years from the date of lodging of FIR. Attention has been drawn to the recovery memo in which the documents allegedly recovered from possession of the applicant do not pertain to the present case crime number. It is submitted that moreover most of the documents found in possession of the applicant pertained to the applicant himself and therefore there was no occasion for him to have been in possession of any fabricated document. It is also submitted that the documents found in possession of the applicant were never corroborated prior to filing of the charge-sheet in order to ascertain their authenticity. Attention has also been drawn to order dated 07.06.2022 in which the co-accused Rohit Srivastava has already been granted bail in the same case crime number who also is said to have at the same role.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the fact that as per recovery memo, the documents found in possession of applicant do not pertain to the present case crime.
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, Reshidh Srivastava, 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 :- 28.6.2022
Subodh/-
