Allahabad High Court
Rinku Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 1 May, 2020
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9775 of 2020 Applicant :- Rinku Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Pursuant to earlier order, the matter has been placed today, in Chambers.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Rinku Gupta with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 9 of 2019, under Section - 135 of Electricity Act, Police Station - Indergarh, District - Kannauj, during pendency of trial.
3. By order dated 05.03.2020, the applicant was permitted to implead the Electricity Board. However, it appears, compliance of that order could not be made owing to the situation arising from the pandemic Covid-19, whereupon there is lockdown, due to which normal functioning of the Court is impaired.
4. From perusal of the bail application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it is seen, the applicant is accused of offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Against FIR lodged on 20.01.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 10.01.2020 i.e. for nearly four months. Also, it is not clear when normal functioning of the Court would be restored as may allow the applicant an opportunity to comply with the order dated 05.03.2020.
5. On merits, the applicant disputes the fact allegation and has further made clear that he has no criminal history. Thus, it has been stated, the applicant has been falsely implicated. In the facts of the present case and the peculiar circumstances existing which are in the nature of force majeure, it appears wholly impractical to first compel compliance of the earlier order dated 05.03.2020, requiring impleadment of the Electricity Board and to thereafter hear the bail application.
6. While, the informant may not be a necessary party in the bail application, even if, he were to be heard in the particular facts of a case, the interest of justice lies first in preserving the liberty of the applicant, instead of first bringing the informant on record and then hearing this application, as there is near impossibility visiting the applicant regarding opportunity to comply with the order dated 05.03.2020. Therefore, facts of the case do not commend to the Court to delay the consideration of the bail application any further.
7. Having perused the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and supplementary affidavit, in absence of any criminal history or recurring nature of the offence committed by the applicant, he is found entitled to bail, at this stage.
8. This Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs. State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.
9. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Rinku Gupta involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) 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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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 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.
(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
10. In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:
"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."
Order Date :- 1.5.2020 Abhilash