Allahabad High Court
Harvinder Singh @ Jugnu Walia vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 13 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9558
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10996 of 2024
Applicant :- Harvinder Singh @ Jugnu Walia
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Riyaz Ahmad,Hemant Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
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. 13 of 2019, under sections 302 /34 /120-B /180 of the I.P.C. and section 3/25 of the Arms Act, Police Station-Alambagh, District-Lucknow.
On 22-10-2019, the following order was passed in Bail Application No. 9503 of 2019, whereby the applicant was enlarged on bail.
"Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Rajiv Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the complainant.
Learned counsel for the complainant has filed the counter affidavit, the same is taken on record.
Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant has filed the rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the complainant, the same is also taken on record.
As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 02.03.2019 in Case Crime No.13 of 2019, under Sections 302/34/120-B/180 I.P.C. and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station-Alambagh, District-Lucknow.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. The F.I.R. has been lodged against one Raju Kalia Sardar and the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. So far as the previous criminal history of the present applicant is concerned, Sri Sinha has explained the criminal history of the applicant in para-36 of this bail application.
Sri Sinha has drawn attention of this Court toward Annexure No.RA-3, which is FSL report dated 18.09.2019, which clearly indicates that the alleged weapons i.e. the Pistol was not used in the commission of crime. However, the case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid Pistol was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant and the said weapon has been used in the commission of offence in question.
Sri Sinha has also drawn attention of this Court towards surrender application of the applicant which has been filed before the court concerned on 02.03.2019, which is contained as Annexure No.9 to this bail application. However, the Inspector Incharge of Police Station-Alambagh, Lucknow has prepared the application for seeking remand of the applicant on 12.02.2019 and the same has been filed in the court concerned on 14.03.2019. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, Sri Sinha has tried to convince the Court that even before the present applicant surrenders before the court concerned, the application was prepared in this case and the same has been filed without changing the date and this is a callous approach, as per Sri Sinha.
Sri Sinha has also submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this case on the basis of Section 120-B I.P.C. As per Sri Sinha, total four persons including the present applicant have been implicated in this case on the basis of Section 120-B I.P.C. and out of these four persons, three persons, namely, Dilshad @ Dilshad Ahmad, Raghuveer Singh Walia @ Sonu Walia and Jasmeet Singh Bedi @ Mintu have been granted bail by this Court. The co-accused Dilshad @ Dilshad Ahmad has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2019 passed in Bail No.5177 of 2019, the co-accused Raghuveer Singh Walia @ Sonu Walia has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2019 passed in Bail No.7863 of 2019 while co-accused Jasmeet Singh Bedi @ Mintu has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2019 passed in Bail No.9131 of 2019. The aforesaid bail orders of the co-accused persons have been produced by Sri Sinha before the Court.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the present applicant has got a chequered criminal history of as many as 22 cases, therefore, if he is released on bail he shall again be indulged in the same criminal activities, therefore, his bail application may be rejected.
For that, Sri Sinha has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. & anr. rendered in Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2012 referring para-6 thereof, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the bail cannot be rejected unless some other compelling circumstances comes into notice of the Court, which convince the Court that the person should not be released on bail and those circumstances may be such as possibility of running away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant may be released on bail on the ground of parity and if the present applicant is released on bail he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by the terms and conditions of bail order and shall also cooperate with the trial proceedings.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant, Harvinder Singh Walia @ Jugnu Walia, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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. "
While considering the merits of the case, the coordinate Bench of this court passed the aforesaid order and it was found that the applicant in the said case is entitled for bail.
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 after the applicant was enlarged on bail, he under the apprehension of danger to his life, started living at 'Punjab' and there, in a petty offence under section 3/25 of the Arms Act, he was sent to jail and he has been taken under judicial custody on B-Warrant. He next added that the applicant could not appear before the trial court on the date fixed due to aforesaid unavoidable circumstances and there was no deliberate act of the applicant so as to avoid the trial proceedings. He submits that the applicant is always ready to appear before the trial court, as and when the date is fixed and he will never jump the conditions of the bail. He next submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17-07-2023 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant has misused the liberty of bail, as such, the applicant 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 is languishing in jail since 17-07-2023; prima-facie, there seems to be no deliberate act of the applicant so as to avoid the trial proceedings 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-Harvinder Singh @ Jugnu Walia, 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 :- 13.2.2025
AKS
