Allahabad High Court
Dharmraj Shukla @ Dharam Raj Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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:19229
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2904 of 2025
Applicant :- Dharmraj Shukla @ Dharam Raj Shukla
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rohitash Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 02 of 2025 under Sections 178, 179, 180, 3(5) BNS, Police Station Hardutt Nagar Girant District Shrawasti.
3. As per contents of First Information Report, a Police party acting on information supplied by a police informant raided the premises in question and recovered certain electronic equipment and counterfeit currency notes. Applicant is shown as one of the three persons who was apprehended from the spot.
4. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that from the contents of First Information Report itself it would be evident that he is not the owner of the premises or of the equipment that was seized. It is submitted that no counterfeit currency notes were recovered from applicant and that the main accused Jaleel Ahmad has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Bail Application No. 2497 of 2025. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 01.01.2025 without any previous criminal history.
5. Learned AGA has opposed bail application with the submission that the recovery memo clearly indicates presence of applicant at the spot wherecounterfeit currency notes were recovered. It is, however, admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and that the alleged main accused Jaleel Ahmad has already been enlarged on bail.
6. 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."
7. 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 although applicant was apprehended from the spot but there was no recovery from his person of any counterfeit currency notes. As per his alleged confessional statement, the main person involved as one Jaleel Ahmad who has already been enlarged on bail as indicated hereinabove. Applicant is under incarceration since 01.01.2025 without any previous criminal history.
8. 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.
9. Let applicant, Dharmraj Shukla @ Dharam Raj Shukla, involved in the aforesaid 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 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 269 BNS.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 209 BNS.
(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 351 BNSS. 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
