Allahabad High Court
Abhishek Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 15 December, 2023
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:238063
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38885 of 2022
Applicant :- Abhishek Gupta
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Jeet Singh,Ran Jeet Singh
Connected with
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40329 of 2022
Applicant :- Om Shankar Chaurasiya
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Siddharth Nandan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Jeet Singh,Ran Jeet Singh
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Ojha, the learned counsel for applicant-Abhishek Gupta, Mr. Siddharth Nandan, the learned counsel for applicant-Om Shankar Chaurasiya, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Ran Jeet Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant.
2. Perused the record.
3. These applications for bail have been filed by applicants-Abhishek Gupta and Om Shankar Chaurasiya, seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 131 of 2022, under Sections 176-D, 323, 342 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Jhansi during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for applicants contend that though applicants are named as well as charge sheeted accused inasmuch as, the charge sheet has been submitted against applicant on 11.06.2022 yet they are liable to be enlarged on bail. They submit that during the pendency of present applications for bail, the trial of the applicants commenced before court below. The prosecutrix Sakshi Kushwaha deposed before court below as PW-1. However, the prosecutrix in her deposition before court below has not supported the FIR. On the above premise, they, therefore, contend that once the prosecutrix has herself not supported the FIR, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the custodial arrest of applicants during the pendency of trial. Furthermore, once the statement of prosecutrix has been recorded, it cannot be said that in case, applicants are released on bail, they shall either terrorize the witnesses or shall hamper the course of trial. On the above premise, they, therefore, contend that applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail.
5. Even otherwise, applicant-Abhishek Gupta is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. However, applicant-Om Shankar Chaurasiya has criminal history of 2 cases which have been specifically detailed in the supplementary affidavit dated 06.02.2023. Referring to the three Judges Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Brijmani Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar and Anohter, (2022) 4 SCC 497, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant-Om Shankar Chaurasiya that an accused cannot be denied bail simply on the ground of criminal history. Moreover, applicant-Om Shankar Chaurasiya has not been implicated in a grievous or heinous crime. Considering the above, the period of incarceration undergone by the applicants and also the fact that the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicants stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicants during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, they submit that applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since applicants are named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants in support of the present applications for bail with reference to the record at this stage.
7. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that the prosecutrix in her deposition before court below has not supported the FIR, in view of above, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the custodial arrest of applicants during the pendency of trial, since the statement of the prosecutrix has already been recorded, therefore, it cannot be said that in case, applicants are released on bail, they shall either terrorize the witnesses or shall hamper the course of trial, the explained criminal history of applicant-Om Shankar Chaurasiya, moreover, applicant-Om Shankar Chaurasiya has not been implicated for a grievous or heinous offence, the three Judges Bench judgment of Apex Court in Brijmani Devi (Supra), the clean antecedents of applicant-Abhishek Gupta, the period of incarceration undergone, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicants stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicants during the pendency of trial, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant in opposition to the present application s for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicants have made out a case for bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed.
9. Let the applicants-Abhishek Gupta and Om Shankar Chaurasiya, be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number on their 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/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
10. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on their bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 15.12.2023
Vinay
