Allahabad High Court
Sajid vs State Of U.P. on 3 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27319 of 2022
Applicant :- Sajid
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.157 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 120B IPC, registered at Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar.
3. As per contents of FIR, the informant's brother Muzmmil went missing on 25.03.2022 whereafter a missing person report was lodged by the informant on 27.03.2022 and subsequently the dead body was recovered on 12.05.2022. The applicant alongwith co-accused have been named in the FIR on the basis of last seen evidence.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on the basis of last seen evidence which even otherwise is weak evidence and requires corroboration. It is submitted that except for the last seen evidence and the alleged extra judicial confession by the applicant, there is no other credible evidence linking the applicant with the crime alleged particularly when the applicant was allegedly last seen with the deceased on 25.03.2022 and the body was recovered almost two months later on 12.05.2022. The applicant is in jail since 14.05.2022 and as yet investigation is continuing in which the applicant is cooperating.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan, learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with the submission that the applicant had a very strong motive to murder deceased since he was having illicit relation-ship with the lady concerned which was being opposed by the deceased. It is submitted that the applicant was last seen with the deceased as per information received by the informant. It is submitted that the applicant has also confessed before the investigating officer.
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 parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that applicant has been apprehended only on the basis of last seen evidence but there appears to be considerable time lag between the date of being last seen with the deceased and the date of recovery of body. Except for the last seen evidence, there only appears to be confessional statement of the applicant, the admissibility of which will be required to be seen during trial. At this stage, there does not appear to be any credible, direct or circumstantial evidence against the applicant although investigation still on going. Applicant is in jail since 14.05.2022 and it has been submitted that he shall cooperate in the investigation.
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,Sajid, 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 :- 3.11.2022
Subodh/-
