Allahabad High Court
Km Jyoti And Another vs State Of U.P. on 30 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:98860
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17568 of 2024
Applicant :- Km Jyoti And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nikhil Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Supplementary affidavit as well as rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicants are taken on record. Counter affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the first informant is taken on record.
Heard Shri Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Tej Bhan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicants Km. Jyoti and Mukul under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 727 of 2023 for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Firozabad South, District Firozabad, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicants by Sessions Judge, Firozabad vide order dated 10.4.2024.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the first information report dated 10.11.2023 has been lodged against the applicants and four other named persons alleging that after execution of sale deed dated 28.3.2007, co-accused Reena Devi executed a sale deed dated 3.8.2023 in favour of co-accused Renu on the basis of ineffective Power of Attorney dated 19.11.1995. It is further submitted that the seller of the two sale deed are common descendants. It is further submitted that a civil suit of purchaser of sale deed dated 3.8.2023 has been filed for a decree of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against the mother of the first informant. It is further submitted that the applicants are witness of the sale deed dated 3.8.2023.
It is further submitted that there is no pre-summoning evidence with regard to the offence punishable under Section 467, IPC. Other offences are punishable up to seven years imprisonment.
He has next argued that the applicant No. 2 has criminal history of four other cases, which has been duly explained in para No. 3 of the supplementary affidavit. Applicant No. 1 has no criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.2.2024.
Learned counsel for the applicants 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. as well as learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicants by contending that the innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicants are released on bail, they 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-applicants, 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 applicants Km. Jyoti and Mukul be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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 applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicants 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.
(v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel.
(vi) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 applicants, 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 :- 30.5.2024
T. Sinha
