Rizwan Solanki vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 18103 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rizwan Solanki vs State Of U.P. on 21 May, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Pachori

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:91908
 
Court No. - 70
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4125 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Rizwan Solanki
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Syed Azeem Uddin,Vineet Vikram
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
 

Rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

Heard Shri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Rizwan Solanki under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 240 of 2023 for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 386, 323, 504, 506, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Jajmau, District Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 21.12.2023.

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 7.11.2023 has been lodged against the applicant, nine other named person and two unknown persons by one Vishnu Saini (who is witness of Session Trial No. 98 of 2023 arising out of case crime No. 127 of 2022, under Sections 147, 327, 427, 386, 436, 504, 506, 120-B, IPC) alleging that on 26.10.2023 at 1.30 p.m. in the court premises, the applicant and other co-accused persons threatened the first informant with dire consequences with regard to the evidence given by him in another case aforesaid. Thereafter, on 7.11.2023 at 9.00 p.m. except the applicant and one Shaukat Ali, six other co-accused persons committed marpeet, assaulted by lathi, danda and threatened with dire consequences.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that on the date of first and second incident the applicant was in judicial custody in another case.

It is further submitted that at the time of first and second incident, the applicant was in lock-up of the court and jail. The role of hatching conspiracy has been assigned to the present applicant. There is no pre-summoning evidence against the applicant for hatching conspiracy, as alleged in the first information report.

It is further submitted that as per medico legal report dated 7.11.2023, two contused swelling have been found on right elbow joint and right scapular region, which are related to non vital part.

He has next argued that the applicant has criminal history of seven other cases, which has been duly explained in para No. 52 of the affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.12.2022.

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446 and Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 wherein the Apex Court has observed that pendency of other criminal cases against the accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

It is well settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception and refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution [Vide State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773].

No material or circumstances has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witnesses in previous criminal history.

Keeping in mind, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, present bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant Rizwan Solanki be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) 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 the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 21.5.2024

T. Sinha