Gautam Patel vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 611 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Gautam Patel vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. ... on 6 May, 2025

Author: Manish Mathur

Bench: Manish Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26420
 
Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12794 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Gautam Patel
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Vikram,Amit Chaudhary,Purcham Mubarak,Vishva Nath Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashwani Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh learned counsel for respondent and perused the record.

2. Rejoinder affidavit to the short counter affidavit of complainant is taken on record alongwith supplementary affidavit filed by complainant.

3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 595 of 2022 under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Gosaiganj, District Sultanpur.

4. As per contents of F.I.R., allegation levelled is that the informant had earlier also submitted an letter dated 6th November, 2022 indicating various aspects of embezzlement on account of the Gram Pradhan and the Secretary of gram panchayat but no F.I.R. was registered leading to follow up letter dated 10th November, 2022 whereafter also the F.I.R. was not registered and ultimately has been registered on the basis of subsequent letter dated 14th November, 2022. The entire gist of allegations levelled is that despite grave allegations of embezellement having been made, F.I.R. has not been registered against the applicant and the Gram Pradhan. The applicant happens to be the erstwhile Secretary of gram panchayat against whom allegations have been levelled.

5. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and has drawn attention to the F.I.R. to indicate that the entire gist thereof is only a narration of the allegation that despite letters having been sent by the informant, no F.I.R. has been registered in terms thereof. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation levelled in the present F.I.R. with regard to any embezzlement having been done by the applicant. It is also submitted that no separate F.I.R. has been registered in pursuance of the earlier letters dated 6th November, 2022 and 10th November, 2022 allegedly submitted by the informant indicating applicant's role in the allegations pertaining to embezzlement.

6. In pursuance of directions issued by this Court earlier on 2nd May, 2025, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for informant submit that no separate F.I.R. has been registered against the applicant in terms of the earlier letters/complaints dated 6th November, 2022 and 10th November, 2022.

7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with submission that allegations pertaining to embezzlement at the instance of Gram Pradhan and the applicant who was then Secretary of gram panchayat are quite evident in the present F.I.R.itself. Learned counsel for informant submits that directions for lodging of F.I.R. against the applicant was at the instance of directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 358 of 2023, Ravi Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. and others connected with Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 829 of 2023, Babita versus State of U.P. and others.

8. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted as admitted also by learned A.G.A. that aforesaid letters dated 6th November, 2022 and 10th November, 2022 are part of the case diary as papers 6 and 8. It is also submitted that co-accused Mamta Verma who was then Gram Pradhan had filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court which was rejected and was upheld by Supreme Court.

9. 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 the entire gist of allegations against the applicant were contained in the letters submitted earlier by applicant dated 6th November, 2022 and 10th November, 2022. It is admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that no separate F.I.R. has been registered with regard to allegations levelled in the said letters and that the present F.I.R. has been registered only on the basis of subsequent letter dated 14th November, 2022. The perusal of present F.I.R. makes it evident that entire gist of allegations is only pertaining to lapses on the part of police authorities in not registering an F.I.R. against the applicant in pursuance of earlier letters dated 6th November, 2022 and 10th November, 2022.

10. Although the F.I.R. indicates that directions have been issued by this Court for lodging F.I.R. against the applicant but there is no narration of any such writ petition in the F.I.R. The directions dated 12th February, 2024 in writ petitions filed by Ravi Pratap Singh and Babita (supra) also do not indicate any such direction having been issued by this Court for lodging of F.I.R. against the applicant. On the contrary it appears that interim orders have been granted by Division Bench of this Court in the said writ petitions. Evidently the case of applicant is different from that of then Gram Pradhan Mamta Verma

11. 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."

12. 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,, specifically the aspect that there is no allegation levelled in the present F.I.R. pertaining to embezzlement on the part of applicant and there being no previous criminal history, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

13. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

14. Let applicant Gautam Patel 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 :- 6.5.2025

prabhat