Allahabad High Court
Arjun Bind vs State Of U.P. on 1 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36505 of 2022
Applicant :- Arjun Bind
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sheel Kumar Singh,Ashutosh Kumar Singh,Diwakar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Arvind Singh Patel, Advocate holding brief for Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh and Mr. Diwakar Shukla, 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.97 of 2022, under Sections 343, 379, 376-D,120B I.P.C., Police Station Ghoorpur, District Prayagraj.
3. As per contents of first information report,the nominated person Manish Bind allegedly abducted the informant and committed rape upon her.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that the applicant was not named in the first information report. It is further contended that the victim has not taken the name of applicant in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that for the first time the name of applicant came to light in the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the main role of rape has been assigned to co-accused Manish Bind who is also named in the first information report. It is further contended that co-accused Dinesh Kumar, Nitesh Kumar @ Anish, Sushila Devi, Banarsi Lal and Lallan have been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications numbered 29749 of 2022, 33436 of 2022 and 42677 of 2022. It is further contended that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 18.06.2022.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the factual aspects of the matter.
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 and upon perusal of the material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that applicant has not been named either in the F.I.R. or even in statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and his name has been introduced for the first time in statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which may indicate deliberation. Even otherwise,the main role has been assigned to that of the nominated person Manish Bind. The applicant is in jail since 18.06.2022 without any previous criminal history. Co-accused Dinesh Kumar, Nitesh Kumar @ Anish, Sushila Devi, Banarsi Lal and Lallan have been admitted to bail by coordinate Benches of this Court as indicated herein above. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Arjun Bind, 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 :- 1.11.2022
kvg/-
