Allahabad High Court
Vaibhav Upadhyay vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. ... on 21 May, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30044
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4436 of 2025
Applicant :- Vaibhav Upadhyay
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek 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.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.327 of 2024, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 337, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5), 61(2) BNS, registered at Police Station Salon, District Raebareli.
3. As per contents of FIR, four persons nominated therein stand accused of their complicity in manufacturing forged birth and death certificates.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him which could be evident from the fact that he is not nominated in the FIR nor is there any allegation levelled against him. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the recovery memo to indicate alleged recovery having taken place on 18.07.2024 which also indicates that only two persons namely Vijay Yadav and Mohd. Zeeshan Khan were apprehended by a police team on the basis of information supplied and various electronic items were recovered from them. It is submitted that the applicant has neither been apprehended at the time of preparation of recovery memo nor is there any recovery from them with regard to any material which would indicate their complicity in manufacturing of fabricated birth and death certificates. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 02.08.2024 with previous criminal history of one case having been explained.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that counter affidavit filed on behalf of State in Bail Application No.13042 of 2024 clearly brings out the aspect of recovery having been effected. It is however admitted that during recovery, the said two persons namely Vijay Yadav and Mohd. Zeeshan Khan were apprehended by the Police with recovery of electronic items from them. It is submitted that he does not have any instructions with regard to any forensic report pertaining to seized electronic items. It is, however, admitted that applicant's previous criminal history is explained.
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 that applicant is not nominated in the FIR nor is there any specific allegation levelled against him pertaining to his complicity in manufacturing of fabricated birth and death certificates. His name appears to have been introduced only on the basis of alleged confessional statements of co-accused. It also appears that there is no recovery from the applicant who is under incarceration since 02.08.2024 with previous criminal has already been explained.
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,Vaibhav Upadhyay 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 :- 21.5.2025
Satish
