Sudhir Kumar @ Billu vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 19596 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sudhir Kumar @ Billu vs State Of U.P. on 29 May, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Pachori

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:97974
 
Court No. - 70
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21137 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar @ Billu
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh Khokher
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
 

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

Heard Sri Birendra Singh Khokher, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pushp Raj Singh, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Sudhir Kumar @ Billu under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to enlarge them on bail in Case Crime No. 44 of 2024, for offence punishable under Sections 307, 427, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Baraut, District- Baghpat, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicants by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Baghpat vide order dated 17.5.2024.

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 the first information report dated 28.01.2024 has been lodged by the cousin of the injured Harendra against unknown driver of Truck No. U.P.-81-BT-8276. It is further submitted that the first statement of the injured was recorded on 30.01.2024 after 2 days of the lodging of the F.I.R., wherein, there is no allegation against the applicant. On 22.02.2024 in the second statement of the injured person, the name of the applicant has been surfaced.

It is further submitted that initially the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 279, 338, 427 of I.P.C. and Sections 307 and 120-B of I.P.C. has been added during the course of investigation on the basis of injury report of the injured, wherein one lacerated wound was found on the left side of forehead 5 cm x 1 cm bone deep and red contusion on left side of chest and other injuries were found on non vital part.

It is further submitted that co-accused Virendra @ Babli and Ajayveer @ Boby have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 13874 of 2024 and 15156 of 2024 vide orders dated 10.4.2024 and 22.4.2024 respectively.

He has next argued that the applicant has criminal history of six other cases, which has been duly explained in para Nos. 3, 4 & 5 of the supplementary affidavit. Out of six cases, in three cases, the applicant is acquitted and in two cases, Final Report has been submitted. The applicant is languishing in jail since 6.5.2024.

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 Sudhir Kumar @ Billu 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 :- 29.5.2024

T. Sinha