Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47825 of 2021 Applicant :- Pez @ Parvez Qureshi @ Imtiyaz Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Dhar Goswami,Pradeep Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, Pez @ Parvez Qureshi @ Imtiyaz with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0273 of 2021, under Section 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Police Station- Jamaniya, District- Ghazipur, during pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of Imtiyaz Qureshi, Imran Khan and Dilshad Husain, who have been arrested from the place of incident. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The alleged recovery of 50 Kg. beef from one tempo is made from the other co-accused Imtiyaz Qureshi, Imran Khan and Dilshad Husain without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 100, Cr.P.C. Co-accused Imtiyaz Qureshi, Imran Khan and Dilshad Husain have been granted bail by the court below on 20.9.2021. Charge sheet has been submitted on 21.10.2021 and the applicant is no more required for the purpose of investigation. The applicant has no criminal history. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 13.10.2021, undertakes that he 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 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 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 applicant, Pez @ Parvez Qureshi @ Imtiyaz 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 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.
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 :- 23.12.2021 T. Sinha