Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8751 of 2019 Applicant :- Abdul Rahim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhat Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gyan Prakash
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The allegation against the applicant is that he had already obtained a loan from Syndicate Bank which had become N.P.A. and by concealing the above fact he obtained another loan from Bank of Baroda wherein he defaulted in re-payment and the same became N.P.A. Investigation has been completed by the investigating agency and charge sheet has been filed and the trial is being proceeded. The applicant is in jail since 08.10.2018.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is sufficient material collected by the investigation officer against the applicant, therefore he should not be enlarged on bail and he should face trial.
After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, it is clear that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been submitted. Although allegations against the applicant are serious but the Apex Court in the Case of Sanjay Chandra and others Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2011 LawSuit(SC) 1239, in para 14 has held as follows:
"14. 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 can be 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.
From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, `necessity' is the operative test.
In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra and others (supra) and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Abdul Rahim, involved in Special Case No. 02 of 2018, FIR No. RC-1202016A0014 of 2016, under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) Anti Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- C.B.I. (Anti Corruption Bureau) District- Ghaziabad pending before Special Court C.B.I., Court No. 1, Ghaziabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of (out of which one should be a family member) to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail 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 applicants are 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.
(v) The applicant shall surrender his passport with the court below and not leave the country without court's permission.
(vi) Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same on day to day basis strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a further period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 Rohit