Allahabad High Court
Raju Singh vs State Of U.P. on 28 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:96574
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20761 of 2024
Applicant :- Raju Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar,Ashutosh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri A.K. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 759 of 2023, U/S 147, 148, 323, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria, during the pendency of trial.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up in the statement of the co-accused person, which is not admissible in the Indian Evidence Act. The said co-accused person, Deepak Yadav has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 4.3.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7071 of 2024. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.11.2023 having criminal history, which stands explained in the affidavit accompanying the bail application, as the applicant is on bail in two cases, the bail orders whereof have been annexed as Annexure 8 to the affidavit and in one case i.e under the U.P. Gangsters Act, the applicant is yet to apply for bail. He further submitted that the case of the applicant is at a better footing than that of the co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, therefore, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
5. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.
6. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
7. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 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 on the ground of parity.
9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Raju Singh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime number 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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
11. 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 :- 28.5.2024
Shalini
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
