Prem Singh v. State of U.P

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42140 of 2023 Applicant :- Prem Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Dwivedi,Pranshu Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Singh 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 applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was summoned by an order dated 25.4.2023. It is submitted that perusal of summoning order, which arises out of complaint case would demonstrate that no fire arm injury has been sustained as per finding recorded in the summoning order. The only case against the applicant is that applicant along with co-accused persons have looted Rs.2,00,000/-. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated and the cause of false implication is to the effect that one Bheekam Singh, who is father of the complainant was summoned in the FIR lodged by brother of the applicant. It is submitted that in the aforesaid case statements of Omprakesh (P.W.-1) and Prem Singh (P.W.-2) were recorded and on the aforesaid basis, summoning order was issued. It is submitted that once the summoning order was issued, the aforesaid Bheekam Singh was arrested and he was enlarged on bail by order dated 9.6.2022 of this Court. It is submitted that the aforesaid facts have triggered the present complaint case against the applicant. Although there is allegation of loot of Rs.2,00,000/-, however, there is no evidence as to how Rs.2,00,000/- cash being carried by the complainant. It is submitted that on account of previous enmity between the parties, present FIR has been lodged. It is further submitted that although there is allegation of fire arm injury has been sustained, however, as per finding recorded in the summoning order by the court below that no firearm injury has been sustained. It is submitted that the aforesaid fact is indicative of the nature of allegation being raised by the opposite side. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 3 of the rejoinder affidavit. Applicant is languishing in jail since 7.9.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶4Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the only allegation is that applicant has looted Rs.2,00,000/- from the complaint. It is submitted that the complaint was made after two and half months. It is further submitted that there is evidence of three witnesses in this respect.

¶5On a pointed query being made to learned counsel for the complainant as to why complaint was lodged and no FIR or application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved, learned counsel for the complainant submits that FIR was not lodged, as such, thereafter, present proceedings have been drawn.

¶6Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶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 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.

¶9In 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. 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.

¶10The 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 applicant.

¶11No 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 his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶12It 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 applicant 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.

¶13Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶14It is to be seen that in the present case, on previous occasion, FIR was lodged by the family members of the applicant against family members of the complainant, in which criminal proceedings are going on and summoning order was issued against family members of the complainant and it cannot be ruled out that the aforesaid aspect, would have triggered the present FIR, as there is no evidence as to how Rs.2,00,000/- was being carried out by the complainant on the date of the incident. It is also to be noted that no application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved so that proper investigation may be carried out.

¶15Considering 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 applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶16Let the applicant Prem Singh involved in S.S.T. No.1077 of 2023, under Section 395 IPC, Police Station Tajganj, 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 applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself 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 applicant 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 applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶17In 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 :- 3.11.2023 D. Tamang High Court of Judicature at Allahabad