Allahabad High Court
Jagdish Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 25 March, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16875
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2473 of 2025
Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Awasthi,Anand Kumar 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. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of applicant is taken on record.
2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.-834 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.
3. As per contents of first information report, applicant alongwith co-accused allegedly procured employment in the P.R.D. (Prantiya Rakshak Dal) in the year 1991 on the basis of forged educational certificates.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that at the time of applicant's appointment in the year 1991, due verification of his testimonials had taken place. It is also submitted that subsequently in the year 2022-2023, at the time of digitization, the original testimonials of the applicant were incorrectly uploaded due to which there were certain discrepancies and is being assumed by opposite party as forgery. It is submitted that in similar circumstances, co-accused Shree Pal and Surendra Kumar have been granted anticipatory bail in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.316 of 2025 by this Court.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with submission that upon comparison of originals, the forgery came to light. It is also submitted that in the present case charge-sheet against applicant has already been filed whereas in the case of Shree Pal and another, investigation was yet ongoing. It is however admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.
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. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material on record, it appears that applicant has been appointed in P.R.D. (Prantiya Rakshak Dal) in the year 1991 and has continued as such till lodging of the FIR, which even otherwise indicates discrepancy in the documents which were uploaded in the year 2022-2023. The aspect of comparison with original testimonials of the applicant will be subject matter of evidence at the stage of trial. The applicant is under incarceration since 13.01.2025 and does not have any previous criminal history and therefore the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Jagdish Prasad, involved in 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 :- 25.3.2025
Subodh/-
