Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 29 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24553
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1673 of 2025
Applicant :- Om Prakash Shukla
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Veer Singh,Abhishek Kumar Singh,Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surendra Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 372 of 2023 under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Chinhut, District Lucknow.
As per contents of FIR, the informant has been defrauded by the persons nominated in the F.I.R. in view of a commercial deal whereby scrap was sought to be purchased by informant for which the sale consideration was advanced without scrap being made available in return.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that he is only an employee of the main firm. It is submitted that there is no direct allegation levelled against the applicant. It is further submitted that even otherwise an unnecessary criminal colour is being sought to be given to a commercial transaction. The applicant is under incarceration since 31st May, 2024. Previous criminal history of one case has been explained.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with submission that even as per contents of F.I.R., the ingredients of sections imputed against the applicant are clearly made out. Learned A.G.A. however has further submitted that previous criminal history of one case has already been explained.
Learned counsel for informant has also opposed bail application with submission that the applicant has been evading arrest by changing his adhar.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that the gist of allegation revealed commercial transaction in which despite sale consideration having been advanced, raw material in pursuance thereof was not supplied. It is admitted that no regular suit or recovery has been sought by the informant till date. The aspect of criminal colour being given to commercial transaction would require consideration by trial court upon evidence being submitted. The applicant is under incarceration since 31st May, 2024 with previous criminal history being explained and trial is only at the inception. Leaned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions admits that no warrant was ever issued against the applicant.
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."
Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Accordingly bail application is allowed.
Let applicant Om Prakash 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 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 :- 29.4.2025
prabhat
