Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Bharadwaj vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 28 June, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6773 of 2022
Applicant :- Rakesh Bharadwaj
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Pandey,Akhilesha Nand Pandey,Ravi Kant
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 opposite party - State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.110 of 2022, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, Police Station - Akbarpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar.
3. As per contents of the FIR, the incident is said to have been occurred on 22nd October, 2021 when the informant went to withdraw certain amount from the ATM but some unknown persons changed his ATM card due to which he suffered a loss of about Rs.25,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. He does not have any previous criminal history. It is submitted that even as per recovery memo, the ATM card recovered from his person does not pertain to indicated in the said crime.
5. As such it is submitted that the recovery is said to have allegedly effected from the applicant has nothing to do whatsoever with the charges levelled against him. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.02.2022.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the contents of the recovery memo which indicates that the ATM recovered from the applicant does 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. Upon consideration of submissions advanced and perusal of material on record and at this stage and subject to further evidence being led to trial, it does not appear that the recovery of ATM card made from the person of the applicant has anything to do with one indicated in the first information report.
9. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
11. Let applicant - Rakesh Bharadwaj, 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
KR
