Allahabad High Court
Arvind Mali @ Pappu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko on 5 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7529
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11755 of 2024
Applicant :- Arvind Mali @ Pappu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Pathak,Himanshu Tiwari,Sarvesh Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Rejoinder Affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.175 of 2020, under sections 307, 392, 41, 411 of the I.P.C.,Police Station-Patranga, District -Ayodhya.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that the applicant was not arrested on spot and his name came into light only on the confessional statement of the co-accused persons. He next added that the role of firing is assigned to the co-accused namely, Sikandar Gautam and if the injury received by the police is there, then that is caused by the co-accused,Sikandar Gautam and not by the present applicant. He next added that the ingredients of section 307 of the I.P.C. do not attract in the present matter so far as the role of the applicant is concerned. He submits that earlier, the first information was also lodged wherein, the applicant was named and with the approximate wordings, the present first information report has been lodged, wherein the applicant has been shown to be involved in committing offence, though there is no cogent piece of evidence against him. He next submits that the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant will tamper the evidences or will threaten the witnesses and he is languishing in jail since 28-09-2020 i.e. more than 4 years and the trial has still not been concluded.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the cases of Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement in SLP (Criminal) No. 8781 of 2024 decided on 9 August, 2024 and Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021(3) SCC 713) and submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of Judgments abovesaid and the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the first information report itself speaks that there were two accused persons and when the investigation was done, it was found from the statement of the co-accusued, Sikandar Gautam that the applicant is also involved in committing the offence and as such, the chargesheet has been filed after thorough investigation and there are 9 cases criminal history of the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief.
Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant was not arrested on spot and he is not named in the first information report. Further the name of the applicant came into light only on the confessional statement of co-accused, Sikandar Gautam; 9 cases criminal history of the applicant has been explained; the applicant is languishing in jail since 28-09-2020 and trial has not still not been concluded and it appears that the case of the present applicant is covered with the Judgments of Manish Sisodia (Supra) and K.A. Najeeb(Supra) coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, 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.
Let the applicant-Arvind Mali @ Pappu, involved in the aforementioned 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:-
(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;
(2) 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. He 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;
(3) 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.; and
(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 5.2.2025
AKS
