Aman and Another v. State of U.P

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37441 of 2023 Applicant :- Aman And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶1Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the first information report was lodged against unknown person for theft of mobile phone. Subsequently, applicants have been apprehended and from the applicants one country made pistol and one cartridge have been recovered. No incriminating article in respect of the present offence has been recovered. There is no evidence linking the applicants with the alleged crime. The criminal history of the applicants have been explained in paragraph no. 14 of the affidavit. Applicant is languishing in jail since 23.7.2023 and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶4Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶5Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:- "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶6In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶7In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicants might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicants in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, they cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicants just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶8The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC

¶51Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicants.

¶9No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that their mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use their liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶10It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants 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 have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶11Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicants are not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶12In the present case, the first information report has been lodged against unknown person(s). The applicants have subsequently been apprehended by police. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicants. There is no direct evidence linking the applicants with the alleged crime. A person cannot be permitted to remain in jail only on suspicion unless the prosecution brings material evidence regarding the applicant's complicity in the alleged crime. In the present case learned A.G.A. has not shown any material or evidence to demonstrate the complicity of the applicants in the alleged crime. Mere on the basis of criminal history the applicants cannot be denied bail when the state has not shown the material to demonstrate complicity of the applicants.

¶13Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶14Let the applicants Aman and Alok Singh involved in Case Crime No. 0141 of 2023, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, Police Station Kheragarh, District Agra be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- i. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. iii. The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. The applicants 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. vi. The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. vii. In the event, the applicants changes residential address, the applicants shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶15In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 12.10.2023 D. Tamang High Court of Judicature at Allahabad