Allahabad High Court
Salim vs State Of U.P. on 8 January, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:3906 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27204 of 2024 Applicant :- Salim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Yadav,Mahesh Prasad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Mahesh Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 217 of 2020, U/S 147, 34, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Didarganj, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.
4. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.3.2023. The said order reads hereinunder:-
"1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Radha Kant Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the informant and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.217 of 2020, under Sections 147, 34, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Didarganj, District Azamgarh with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have come to the house of the informant on 30.12.2020 at about 6:00 PM and taken away the brother Rajesh Kumar Singh for a feast. The dead body of the brother of the informant was recovered on 31.12.2020 at about 8:00 AM at Didarganj Road.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused persons, namely, Sonu @ Dharmendra, Anant Rai and Radhey Shyam Yadav, who have been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since since 1.1.2021.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the case of the applicant is at a different footing to the co-accused persons, who have been enlarged on bail, as he is the only named accused person. The applicant had taken away the deceased alongwith him and he alongwith the deceased person and other co-accused persons were seen in the market. They have further stated that there is recovery of a motorcycle of the deceased person and his cap at the pointing of the applicant, as such he is not entitled for bail.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the rival submissions, the case of the applicant is not at par with co-accused persons, who have been enlarged on bail, as he is the main accused person and is named in the FIR, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order or as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial."
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:
5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has nothing to do with the said offence.
6. Only two witnesses of fact have been examined to date. The third witness is subjected to cross-examination, as such, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in the near future.
7. 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.
8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 1.1.2021, as such, more than four years have passed for him in jail. The fundamental rights of the applicant as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:
9. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the report was called from the trial court, which indicates that the statements of two witnesses have been concluded and the examination-in-chief of P.W. 3 has been recorded and his cross-examination is yet to be recorded.
CONCLUSION:
10. The Supreme Court while granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister in V. Senthil Balaji vs. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial. It emphasized the incompatibility of stringent bail provisions with prolonged delays in trial.
11. While granting bail to ex-WB minister in Partha Chatterjee vs. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3729, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that "a suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention."
"The Court would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, namely, actions that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial," observed the bench.
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, has observed as under:-
"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."
13. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785 this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.
14. 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.
15. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply 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.
16. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasized 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?.
17. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
18. 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.
19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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.
20. Let the applicant- Salim 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./351 B.N.S.S. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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 :- 8.1.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal)