Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ... on 1 May, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25041
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3694 of 2025
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arshad Ahsan Siddiqui
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 while power on behalf of complainant has been filed by Mr. Amit Tewari, Advocate which is taken on record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.150 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Raebareli.
3. As per contents of FIR, co-accused namely, Kamla Devi and Ram Kumar were allegedly instrumental in creation of a fabricated sale-deed pertaining to property of the informant in which applicant is allegedly the marginal witness.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that he is neither the vendor, vendee or beneficiary of the aforesaid alleged illegal transaction and has been indicated only as a marginal witness. It is submitted that till date no suit for cancellation of said sale-deed has been filed. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 05.03.2025 without any previous criminal history.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that the applicant is clearly complicit in the allegations of fabrication of sale-deed pertaining to property owned by informant who is 84 years of age. Learned AGA however admits that 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 submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears from a bare perusal of FIR that the applicant has been named only as a marginal witness in the alleged fabricated sale-deed. There does not appear to be any allegation of applicant being a vendor, vendee or beneficiary of the said transaction and is under incarceration since 05.03.2025 without any previous criminal history.
8. 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.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Rajesh Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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 she/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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her 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/her 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/her, 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/her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 1.5.2025
Subodh/-
