Gurbaj v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41483 of 2023 Applicant :- Gurbaj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 388 of 2022, under Sections 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Baheri, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of a pistol, six live cartridges, ornaments made of yellow and white metal and Indian currency has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph 14 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 24.05.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

¶5After hearing the rival contentions, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At present, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant.

¶6In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant 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 applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he 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 applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶7In 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."

¶8In 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.

¶9Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than one and a half year there is no hope of early conclusion of trial and without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶10Let the applicant Gurbaj involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and,

(iv) shall appear on first Sunday of every month at the Police Station concerned.

¶11In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 12.10.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad