Manju v. State of U.P

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50796 of 2023 Applicant :- Manju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Singh 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 as per allegations in the first information report, it is alleged that the nominated accused persons including the applicant have looted Rs 65,000/- and a mobile phone from the son of the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after two days of the incident recovery of Rs. 15,000/- has been made from the applicant and from other co-accused persons recovery of Rs. 50,000/- has been shown. Co-accused-Shivam Yadav and Parshuram have already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 and

30.11.2023, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 50762 of 2023 an 50006 of 2023, respectively. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since

17.09.2023 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 51. Learned 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 her 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 Manju involved in Case Crime No. 354 of 2023, under Sections 420, 392, 411 IPC, Police Station Khandauli, 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 herself 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 she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she 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 her 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 :- 4.12.2023 S.Prakash High Court of Judicature at Allahabad