Aneesh v. State of U.P

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24940 of 2023 Applicant :- Aneesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶3Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶4Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.331 of 2022, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Rasoolpur, District Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶5It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Haider @ Babu has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.5.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19240 of 2023. Learned counsel has stated that the criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained in paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit filed today in Court. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.8.2022. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶6The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶7Learned 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."

¶8In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶9Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶10Let the applicant-Aneesh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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 IPC.

(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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶11In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶12It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 26.10.2023 Vikas [Krishan Pahal, J.] High Court of Judicature at Allahabad