Allahabad High Court
Aas Mohammd @ Bhuteli vs State Of U.P. on 30 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:99445
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18958 of 2023
Applicant :- Aas Mohammd @ Bhuteli
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- M J Akhtar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard SriM J Akhtar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.1025 of 2022 (S.T. No.131 of 2023), under Sections 379, 411, 413 I.P.C., Police Station- Kasia, District- Kushinagar, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution case, some unknown person is stated to have picked the pocket of the informant on 1.11.2022 at the Kushi Nagar bus station.
5. 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. A false recovery of the said stolen goods has been made from him. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. Learned counsel has further stated that there are 14 more cases against the applicant of similar nature and two of those cases are under the NDPS Act. The applicant is an indigent person and is unable to fetch the said orders as he does not have any Parokar to take care of him. He is in jail because he is poor.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further placed much reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Moti Ram and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47, whereby the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"15. It is interesting that American criminological thinking and research had legislative response and the Bail Reforms Act, 1966 came into being. The then President, Lyndon B. Johnson made certain observations at the signing ceremony:
"Today, we join to recognize a major development in our system of criminal justice: the reform of the bail system.
This system has endued-archaic, unjust and virtually unexamined-since the Judiciary Act of 1789.
The principal purpose of bail is to insure that an accused person will return for trial if he is released after arrest.
How is that purpose met under the present system ? The defendant With means can afford to pay bail. He can afford to buy his freedom. But the poorer defendant cannot pay the price He languishes in jail weeks, months and perhaps even years before trial.
He does not stay in jail because he is guilty. He does not stay in jail because any sentence has been passed.
He does not stay in jail because he is any More likely to flee before trial.
He stays in jail for one reason only-because he is poor...."
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that no test identification parade has been conducted as per Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act. 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. The applicant is languishing in jail since 1.11.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
10. 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.
11. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
12. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.
13. 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.
14. Let the applicant- Aas Mohammd @ Bhuteli, 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.
15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
16. 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 :- 30.5.2024
Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
