Allahabad High Court
Ramrati vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. on 7 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19387
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2401 of 2025
Applicant :- Ramrati
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pravin Singh,Dhananjay Singh,Shivam Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.344 of 2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, P.S. Khiron, District Raebareli.
4. As per contents of FIR, applicant was instrumental in introducing the informant to the alleged vendor on the plot in question. Allegation has been levelled by the said person Dr. Ishwarchandra was in fact an imposter of the actual owner of property.
5. It is also alleged that the informant was duped of a considerable amount of money due to aforesaid impersonation in which the applicant alongwith one Ram Bahadur was instrumental.
6. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her and from a perusal of FIR, the only role attributed to applicant is that of having introduced the informant to the alleged imposter. It is submitted that applicant is neither the vendor or vendee of the transaction nor even a marginal witness. It is submitted that the applicant is also not allegedly a beneficiary of the alleged transaction. It is submitted that co-accused Ram Bahadur has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Bail Application No. 813 of 2025. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 20.01.2025 and a single case criminal history has already been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed today.
7. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State opposed the prayer for bail application with the submissions that it is in fact the applicant who was instrumental in deceiving the informant by introducing him to a impersonator of the actual owner of the property. It is also submitted that the case of Ram Bihari is not similar to that of applicant since he was a marginal witness of the sale deed. It is, however, admitted that the single case subsequent criminal history has already been explained.
8. 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."
9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that only role assigned to applicant as per narrative in the FIR is that of having introduced the informant to the person who was allegedly an imposter. The narration does not indicate applicant either to be a vendor, vendee or marginal witness or even a beneficiary of the transaction. Co-accused Ram Bahadur has already been enlarged on bail as indicated hereinabove. The applicant is under incarceration since 20.01.2025 with criminal history already having been explained.
10. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.
11. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
12. Let applicant-Ramrati involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) 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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.
Order Date :- 7.4.2025
Satish
