Allahabad High Court
Manish Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 23 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23000
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10122 of 2024
Applicant :- Manish Gupta
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Pandey,Abhishek Pandey,Dr. Pooja Singh,Neetu Patel,Ramakar Shukla
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. 0391 of 2024 under Sections 3/5/25(1), A/25(1B) & 25(8) Arms Act, P.S. Para, District Lucknow.
3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 24.07.2024 when the Police team acting upon tip-off provided by Police informer intercepted a vehicle bearing registration no. M.P. 07 CK 1677 with applicant and one Shalendra Sharma being apprehended on the spot with unlicensed arms.
4. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him in view of the fact that there is no independent witness of the alleged recoveries which were made and even otherwise the arms allegedly recovered from the applicant do not come within the definition of prohibited arms. It is submitted that as such the maximum punishment imposable is less than ten years. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 24.07.2024 with previous criminal history of one case having been explained. It is also submitted that as yet evidence has not commenced during trial.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail applicant with the submission that applicant was cought red handed with the aforesaid unlicensed arms which was used for illegal trafficking. It is, however, admitted that applicant's previous criminal history has been explained.
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 applicant has been apprehended on the basis of information suppled to the Police team. There does not appear to be any independent witness of the alleged recovery. The aspect of applicant trafficking prohibited fire arms would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. The applicant is under incarceration since 24.07.2024 with previous criminal history having been explained.
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, Manish Gupta, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local 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 :- 23.4.2025
Satish
