Allahabad High Court
Mujahid vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home ... on 24 March, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16735
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9502 of 2024
Applicant :- Mujahid
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Shukla,Manish Mani Sharma
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. 1 of 2024 under Sections 384/389/419/420 IPC & Section 66C/66D/67 I.T. Act, Police Station Cyber Crime Ambedkar Nagar, District Ambedkar Nagar.
3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 14th October, 2023 when the informant received a call from unknown number. It is stated that taking advantage of obscene photographs and pictures sent through mobile, various amounts were extracted from the applicant in order to blackmail him. It also states that subsequently a phone call was received by the applicant from a person claiming to be one Vikram Malhotra, an officer of the Delhi police Cyber Cell. The said person also blackmailed the applicant and to whom various amount of money were paid.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that the F.I.R. has been filed only with regard to mobile numbers and does not indicate the name of any person. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the recovery memo to indicate that neither the mobile recovered from the applicant had the same number as indicated in the first information report nor was IMEI number same. It is submitted that a bare perusal of recovery memo will indicate that both the mobile number as well as IMEI number recovered from the applicant were distinct from the mobile number allegedly used in perpetuation of the crime alleged.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that although the sim number of mobile recovered from the applicant was different from one used and indicated in the first information report but the IMEI number was the same. It is submitted that after change of a sim card used in a mobile, only the last two digits of IMEI number change with all the remaining numbers being same. It is submitted that all the digits of IMEI number would be different in case applicant's mobile number was not used in the crime.
6. It is however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and has been apprehended only on the basis of IMEI number.
7. 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 applicant has not been named in the F.I.R. and has been apprehended only on the basis of IMEI number. However a perusal of the recovery memo also indicates that there is certain discrepancy in the IMEI number allegedly used in the crime and the one which was recovered from possession of applicant. The submission of learned A.G.A. that upon change of sim card in a mobile, only the last two digits of IMEI number would change, will be subject matter of evidence but at present as per the recovery memo, neither the mobile number nor the IMEI number of the mobile recovered from the applicant appear to be the same with the one said to have been used in the crime.
8. The applicant is under incarceration since 15th July, 2024 and admittedly does not have any previous criminal history.
9. 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."
10. 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.
11. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
12. Let applicant Mujahid 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 :- 24.3.2025
prabhat
