Allahabad High Court
Upendra Urf Bhala vs State Of U.P. on 1 October, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:161312
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32342 of 2024
Applicant :- Upendra Urf Bhala
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Ganguli,Masoom Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 213 of 2024, under Sections 109(1), 352, 3(5) BNS and 3/25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Shahpur, District Muzaffarnagar during the pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the alleged incident took place at the spur of moment due to some hot-talks took place between the injured and the applicant. Initially F.I.R. was lodged against three persons under Section 109(1) and 352 of BNS but during investigation section 3(5) of BNS and Section 3/25/27 of the Arms Act were added. The injury sustained by the injured is not fatal to life. The injured himself submitted an affidavit before Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar stating therein that he did not see the applicant firing upon him. He further stated that the F.I.R. has been lodged by one Sahjad and the name of the applicant has been mentioned in the F.I.R. only on the basis of hearsay. Injured also stated in the affidavit that the applicant and other co-accused persons were not involved in the alleged incident.
3.1. It has argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that pursuant to the order dated 9.9.2024, the statements of the informant as well as injured though have been recorded, but they did not corroborate the version of the prosecution. The applicant has criminal history of 11 cases including the present one to his credit, which has been duly explained in the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.7.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that the statements of four witnesses have been recorded during investigation including an eyewitness, who have supported the version of the prosecution.
5. In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on 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.
7. Let the applicant Upendra Urf Bhala in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
8. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 1.10.2024
SY
