Allahabad High Court
Badal Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 10 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:84607
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12684 of 2024
Applicant :- Badal Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dushyant Singh,M.C. Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Dushyant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 725 of 2018, under Sections 328, 395, 412 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandra, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The applicant was arrested by police only on the information of squealer on 08.09.2018. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents except one case and all other six cases were foisted on him at the time of arrest in the instant case. The applicant has yet to procure bail in Case Crime No.87 of 2018 and he is languishing in jail since 29.11.2018. The applicant has stated that fundamental rights stands violated as he is languishing in jail since about five years. He is ready to cooperate during trial. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said criminal history of the applicant stands explained. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgment of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. The Supreme Court in its judgment passed in R.D. Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. and others, (1996) 3 SCC 422 has laid down the directions regarding bails in the matter of minor offences. The relevant paragraph 3 is being reproduced herein as under :
"3. So far as the cases regarding attempt to murder are concerned, we direct that the cases which are pending for more than 2 years, the undertrials shall be released on bail forthwith to the satisfaction of the respective trial courts. Persons facing trial for Kidnapping, Theft, Cheating, Arms Act, Counterfeiting, Customs, under Section 326 IPC, under Section 324 IPC, Riots and under Section 354 IPC who are in jail for a period of more than one year, shall be relased on bail forthwith to the satisfaction of the trial courts concerned. There may be cases where the undertrial persons may not be in a position to furnish sureties etc. In those cases, the trial courts may consider- keeping in view the facts of each case especially the period spent in jail - releasing them on bail by furnishing personal bonds."
8. After hearing leraned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the mandate of the Supreme Court passed in R.D. Upadhyay (supra), the evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant- Badal Sharma who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.
(ii) 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 him in accordance with law.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024
Priya
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
