Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53980 of 2021 Applicant :- Areeb Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Agarval,Shiv Singh Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Ankit Agarval, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused material on record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Areeb, under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 234 of 2021 under Sections 395, 412, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Narora, District Bulandshahar, during pendency of the trial.
Brief facts of the case are that the FIR was lodged by the complainant by the against two unknown persons on 26.08.2021 at police station Narora, District Bulandshahr hat on 26.08.2021 at about 06:15 A.M. an unknown woman knocked the door of the house of the complainant saying that she was having stomach ache and she wanted to answer the nature's call and when the mother of the complainant resisted the same and asked about the whereabouts of the said woman then she was made a call and thereafter three persons came who forcefully entered into the house and administered beating and took away jewellery, two mobile phones and Rs. 50,000/- cash.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant it appears that recovery of the aforesaid amount so made from the co-accused Nazma, who has no relation with the applicant and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant.
The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Co- accused Mohammad Sabir @ Mohammad Shamim as well as Rajkeen have been granted bail vide orders dated 20.12.2021 and 01.12.2021 respectivel by coordinate Benches of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 53668 of 2021 and Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 47975 of 2021 and the case of the applicant is on same footing as of the aforesaid co- accused, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The learned counsel for the applicant has next argued that the applicant is in jail since 27.08.2021 and the paragraph no. 16 of the application shows that the applicant has no previous criminal history. Charge-sheet has been submitted on 19.20.2021, therefore, he is no more required for the purpose of investigation.He lastly submits that if the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative" and considering the facts of the present case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.
Let applicant, Areeb be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.
(iv) 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 the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 22.12.2021 aks