Allahabad High Court
Muneeb Urf Rajmani vs State Of U.P. on 21 December, 2023
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:242240
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51698 of 2023
Applicant :- Muneeb Urf Rajmani
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar,Deena Nath,Sunita Dhusia
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Deena Nath, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Muneeb Urf Rajmani seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 137 of 2023 under Sections 452, 376 I.P.C., Police Station-Kapsethi, District-Varanasi during the pendency of trial.
3. Record shows that an F.I.R. dated 12.08.2023 was lodged by first-informant Smt. Rekha Devi and was registered as Case Crime No. 137 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 452, 494, 376 I.P.C., and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kapsethi, District- Gomti (Commissionerate Varanasi). In the aforesaid F.I.R., one person namely Sanjay Bind (husband) has been nominated as named accused, whereas, father-in-law, two Jeth, mother-in-law, both the Jethani and alleged one Tantrik have also been arraigned as accused.
4. It is apposite to mention here that in the day, date and time column of the F.I.R. no particulars have been mentioned. However, in the body of the F.I.R. the occurrence relatable to the present applicant is said to have occurred in the year 2015.
5. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. Applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Attention of the Court was then invited to the F.I.R. and on basis thereof, it is urged that allegations made in the F.I.R. relate to the occurrence of the year 2015. The F.I.R. giving rise to the present criminal proceedings was lodged on 12.08.2023 i.e. after expiry of a period of almost 8 years. He therefore, contends that the F.I.R. qua the present applicant is highly belated. However, neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,therefore, there is no explanation with regard to the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in P. Rajagopal And Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866/2019(5) SCC 40, the learned counsel for applicant contends that since the F.I.R. is highly belated and there being no explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the present criminal proceedings against applicant is itself not maintainable. As such, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
6. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 08.09.2023. As such, he has undergone more than three months of incarceration. 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 applicant stands crystallized. Upto this stage, no such circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He, therefore, submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present application for bail with reference to the record at this stage.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of accused and accusation made coupled with the fact that, the F.I.R. giving rise to the present criminal proceedings was lodged on 12.08.2023 i.e. after expiry of a period of almost 8 years, as such, the F.I.R. qua the present applicant is highly belated, however, neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no explanation with regard to the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the judgment of Supreme Court in P. Rajagopal (Supra), the clean antecedents of applicant, 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 applicant stands crystallized, yet inspite of above the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant- Muneeb Urf Rajmani, be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number 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/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.
11. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his 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 :- 21.12.2023
Imtiyaz
