Rahul Gaur @ Rahul Bhushan Gaur v. State of U.P

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31764 of 2023 Applicant :- Rahul Gaur @ Rahul Bhushan Gaur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vaibhav Kaushik,Nafees Ahmad 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 applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was working as a junior clerk in the Food Corporation of India (FCI) godown, Ganganagar Meerut where a raid was conducted on 31.08.2017. The applicant was not found at the place in question, however, it was found that two trucks were being loaded with grains without the permission of the competent authority and on the aforesaid basis the F.I.R. has been lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had applied for leave from 29.08.2017 to 06.09.2017 and the aforesaid leave was duly sanctioned and the order was issued for the charge being transferred to Smt. Archana Tiwari. The charge appropriate order dated 30.08.2017 is at page 32 of the bail application. Learned counsel submits that all the similar aspects a departmental enquiry was also initiated against the applicant, however, the applicant has been reinstated in service. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that no food grain went out side the premises of the Food Corporation of India and even assuming that the prosecution case is correct there is no other evidence to show that the applicant has interpolated in Government records or have committed any cheating. He submits that once the food grain has not gone out side the premises of the Food Corporation of India. The applicant has incorrectly been proceeded with. Further, it is submitted that the applicant had filed a criminal writ petition challenging the F.I.R. in which arrest stay was initially granted. However, subsequently the applicant was arrested. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 23.06.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he 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 not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶6It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶7The 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 for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶8No 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.

¶9It 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.

¶10Learned 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.

¶11Considering 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.

¶12Let the applicant Rahul Gaur @ Rahul Bhushan Gaur involved in Case Crime No. 258 of 2017, under sections 3/7 E.C. Act, 1955 as well as under sections 409 and 420 I.P.C., Police Station Ganga Nagar, District Meerut, 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.

¶13In 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 :- 9.11.2023 K.K. Maurya High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad