Allahabad High Court
Amit Maurya @ Amit Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 13 November, 2024
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178297
Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26134 of 2024
Applicant :- Amit Maurya @ Amit Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Desh Ratan Chaudhary,G.A.,Ishwar Chandra Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This is the second bail application. The first Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6712 of 2024 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2024.
3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Amit Maurya @ Amit Kumar Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case crime No.259 of 2023, under Sections 386, 389, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Lalpur/Pandeypur, District-Varuna (Commissionerate Varanasi), during the pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the offences are triable by Magistrate. He has emphasized upon the period of detention that applicant is in jail since 24.10.2023 i.e. more than one year. He further submits that no charges have been framed till date. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future. The applicant has criminal history of three cases, which have been explained in paragraph no.22 of the bail application. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 712, wherein it has been held as follows:-
"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."
5. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
6. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage.
7. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:-
"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."
8. 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.
9. 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 Apex 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.
10. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused-applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness. Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would dis-entitle the applicant for Bail.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the applicant for the alleged offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) 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.
(vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
(vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.
(viii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(ix) In case, the applicant is found misusing the bail by indulging in similar activities, for which an FIR may be lodged, informant is free to move bail cancellation application.
13. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 13.11.2024
Rahul.
