Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38810 of 2021 Applicant :- Layak Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, Layak Singh, Maya Ram and Nepal Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 130 of 2021, under Sections 395, 397, 332, 353, 171F, 504, 412 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station- Fatehabad, District- Agra, during pendency of trial.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to village parti bandi in village election. It has been further submitted that F.I.R. of the present case has been lodged against 50 to 60 unknown persons alleging that on 15.4.2021, first informant and other persons were in their polling duty and at about 11:30 am a mob of 50 to 60 persons came at the polling booth and shattered the property of school and started mar peet with them. Two ballot box were also looted by the mob. It has been further submitted that during investigation, police has recovered two stamp seal. It is further submitted that there is no independent/public witness of the alleged recovery. Applicant no. 3 has no criminal history. Applicant no. 2 has criminal history of one case of Excise Act. Applicant no. 1 has criminal history of ten other cases out of which in three cases he has been acquitted. The applicants are not named in the first information report. Co-accused Malkhan, Mahipal, Bhav Singh and Doobka @ Dubak Singh have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 25489 of 2021 and 31655 of 2021, vide orders dated.12.8.2021 and 17.8.2021. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicants either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicants, who are languishing in jail since 15.4.2021 undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. In case the applicants are released on bail, they 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 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.
Let applicants Layak Singh, Mayaram and Nepal Singh 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants misuse 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.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 A.P. Pandey