Allahabad High Court
Shriman Narayan Shukla @ Pintu Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 1 May, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25045
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3700 of 2025
Applicant :- Shriman Narayan Shukla @ Pintu Shukla
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.
2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.25 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 316(5), 61(2) of BNS, Sections 26, 41, 42, 52 of Indian Forest Act, and Sections 27, 29, 31, 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur.
3. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 28.01.2025 at about 4.00 a.m. when SSB team raided a particular place and said to have recovered a Pickup and one Scorpio loaded with forest produce. The applicant is shown as being apprehended from the spot.
4. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that the FIR does not indicate any particular recovery from the applicant, who in fact is only a labourer. It is also submitted that all the sections imputed against the applicant carry maximum sentence of three years while the applicant has been under custody since 05.04.2025. Charge sheet has not been filed. Previous criminal history of applicant has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of application.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that the applicant has been caught red handed from the spot by the police team. It is admitted that investigation is still ongoing.
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. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that although the applicant has been shown involved in the aforesaid crime but there does not appear to be particular recovery from his person. The aspect of imputation of sections against him in case he is only a labourer would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. The maximum sentence admittedly is of three years while applicant is under incarceration since 05.04.2025 with his previous criminal history having been explained. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Shriman Narayan Shukla @ Pintu Shukla, 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/she 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/her under Section 269 of BNSS.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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/her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNSS.
(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 351 BNSS. 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/her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 1.5.2025
Subodh/-
