Raushan Kumar v. Union of India

Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45537 of 2023 Applicant :- Raushan Kumar Opposite Party :- Union of India Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Krishna Agarawal Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the opposite party-Union of India and perused the material on record. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Raushan Kumar under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. Nil of 2023, under Section 135 of Custom Act, 1962, Police Station Custom, District Varanasi after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Varanasi vide order dated 25.09.2023. As per prosecution case, on 04.07.2023 at 20.45 hours at Lal Bahadur Shastri International Airport, Varanasi, 860.210 gram gold was recovered from the possession of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the offence is compoundable in nature and punishable upto 3 to 7 years imprisonment. The applicant is languishing in jail since

05.07.2023. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Rasiklal vs. Kishore, 2009 AIR (Supreme Court) 1341. Per contra, learned counsel for Union of India has supported the order passed by the Session court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. After considering the facts of the present case prima facie it appears that;

(a) The applicant has been arrested without assigning any reason to believe nor any satisfaction to justified his arrest as provided in the Act;

(b) Offences as alleged are punishable up-to 3 to 7 years imprisonment; It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment on which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, in the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed. Let applicant, Raushan Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) 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.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. Order Date :- 22.11.2023 MAA/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad