Allahabad High Court
Ravi Kannaujia vs St on 24 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24744 of 2022
Applicant :- Ravi Kannaujia
Opposite Party :- St
Counsel for Applicant :- Abrar Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Kumar Mishra,Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.277 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506, 120B, 34 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Nawabganj, District Allahabad.
3. Earlier, applicant had been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2019 primarily on the ground that applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and his name was introduced in the confessional statement of co-accused before police personnel. Main role of firing had been assigned to co-accused Rajnikant Pasi and there was no recovery at the instance of applicant. Conditions of bail were indicated in the order that the applicant would appear before the trial court on the dates fixed unless personal presence was exempted.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that subsequent to 10.07.2019, applicant continued to appear before the court concerned but subsequently got employed in Mumbai and had to shift there for purposes of employment due to which his counsel was unable to intimate him the date fixed on 17.03.2021 due to which he was unable to appear and as such non-bailable warrant was issued against him. It is submitted that at that time, COVID-19 pandemic was ongoing in the country due to which also the applicant was unable to attend the hearings and subsequently on 15.03.2022, directions under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were also issued whereafter applicant surrendered on 12.04.2022 and is under custody since then. It is submitted that non-appearance before the court concerned is purely inadvertent and not deliberate. Undertaking has been given that the applicant would adhere to the conditions of bail as granted earlier.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with submission that applicant was absent continuously since 17.03.2021 due to which proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were also initiated against him. Learned counsel for informant submits that due to aforesaid act of applicant, the trial could not progress and the files pertaining to applicant had to be separated.
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 after grant of bail by this Court on 10.07.2019, applicant had appeared before the court concerned but due to his non-appearance on 17.03.2021, non-bailable warrant was issued against him whereafter proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were also initiated on 15.3.2022 whereafter the applicant surrendered on 12.04.2022. Learned counsel for applicant submits that non-presence was purely inadvertent since applicant is not highly educated. Undertaking is being given that applicant shall remain present on every date as directed by this Court earlier as well, unless his appearance is exempted. 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 Ravi Kannaujia, 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.
The trial court may make an endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Order Date :- 24.11.2022
kvg/-
