Allahabad High Court
Suraj vs State Of U.P. on 3 June, 2025
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:94877 Court No. - 48 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17343 of 2025 Applicant :- Suraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant involved in Case Crime No. 16 of 2024, under Sections 380, 411, 457, 399, 402 IPC, Police Station-Loni Border, District-Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is not named in the FIR, which was lodged against unknown person regarding theft in the shop of complainant. Involvement of applicant was shown only on the basis of the statement of co-accused persons. Recovery of one silver coin was shown from the possession of applicant after one year of the incident. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no credible evidence against applicant. Similarly placed co-accused Baldeep Pardi, Guman Pardi and Langadi have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, copy of which has been produced and the same is taken on record. Applicant is in judicial custody since 03.02.2025. Criminal history shown against applicant has duly been explained. It was submitted that in case applicant is granted bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate during trial.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of bail and argued that applicant was involved in the incident in question. Learned AGA has referred facts of the matter and submitted that there are serious allegations against the applicant and that applicant is not entitled for bail.
6. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.
7. It is well settled that at pre-conviction stage, there is presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of the allegation or the availability of material in support thereof are not the only considerations for declining bail. In this connection reference may be made to case of Vinod Bhandari V State of M.P. (2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases 502.
8. In the instant matter, considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, period of detention and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits, a case for bail is made out. According bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant Suraj, involved in aforesaid case crime, 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 the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize / intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
10. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 3.6.2025 Sumit S