Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 23 October, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:169315 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29222 of 2024 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sunil Vashisth, holding brief of Sri Ankur Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 341 of 2023, under Sections 306 I.P.C., Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar , during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The named accused persons are stated to have abeted the deceased person to commit suicide as it was revealed that the named accused person namely Tanya Verma was having illicit relationship out of her marriage and several messages were sent to the social media portal of the deceased person which indicated towards it.
5. As such, he is stated to have committed suicide out of abetment by the named accused person.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :
6. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the said offence.
7. The FIR is delayed by about six months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
8. Even an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved at a belated stage on 27.07.2023 which itself is delayed by more than one and half months.
9. The applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up later on the basis of electronic evidence garnered by the Investigating Officer who has stated that it was the mobile of the applicant by which the said Facebook and Instagram I.Ds. were generated and the said indecent messages were sent to the deceased person rendering him in a state of depression as such he has committed suicide.
10. Only sending of messages does not indicate that the applicant has abeted the deceased to commit suicide.
11. Even the C.D.R. of the applicant does not indicate that the applicant had any communication with the deceased person on phone.
12. As such, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC does not stand fulfilled.
13. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.
14. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.06.2024. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE :
15. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that after thorough investigation, the named accused person has been exonerated as it was the applicant who used to send the said indecent messages to the deceased thereby abetting him to commit suicide.
CONCLUSION:
16. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.
17. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away smply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.
18. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".
19. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
20. It 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.
21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the fact that the FIR is delayed and also the fact that there is no over act assigned to the applicant in the said messages 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.
22. Let the applicant- Amit Kumar Pandey involved in aforementioned case crime number 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 following conditions.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.
(ii) 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.
23. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
24. It 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 :- 23.10.2024 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal)