Allahabad High Court
Master Yogendra vs State Of Up on 21 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:91320
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18588 of 2024
Applicant :- Master Yogendra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Birendra Singh Khokher,Dharmendra Pratap Singh,G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the first informant, Mr. Chavi Pal Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Master Yogendra under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 305 of 2023 for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Jhinjhana, District- Shamli during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Session Judge, Shamli at Kairana vide order dated 03.05.2024.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and other co-accused persons had executed an agreement to sell in respect of Khasra Nos. 939 and 1064 on 04.10.2024 and Khasra No. 130A and 130B on 27.10.2014 in favour of the first informant. It is further alleged that prior to the aforesaid agreement to sell the applicant and other accused persons had executed an agreement to sell in respect of Khasra No. 1064 in favour of one Satendra, the applicant and his brothers violated the terms and condition of the agreement to sell and refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the first informant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the first information report dated 08.08.2023 has been lodged against the applicant and other 3 named persons which has been lodged after 8 years and 10 months of the execution of agreement to sell in favour of the first informant and another three named persons and a Civil Appeal bearing no. 10 of 2023 (Yogendra Singh Vs. Sudhir Kumar) between the parties is pending in the Court of District Judge, Shamli as shown in the paper book no. 35 of the order sheet.
5. It is further submitted that a suit for specific performance has been filed by the first informant against the applicant and another co-accused person which has been decreed by the trial court. It is further submitted that the first informant converted a civil dispute into a criminal case.
6. He has next argued that other co-accused Upendra, having similar role, has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.04.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12106 of 2024. He has next argued that applicant has criminal history of one cases, which has been duly explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.04.2024.
7. 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.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant 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.
9. 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.]
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Let applicant, Master Yogendra 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.
13. 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.
14. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
15. 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.
16. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
17. 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
Ishan
