Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 122 (ALL)

Anwar Ali v. State Of U. P.

2022-01-28

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This is the second bail appeal/application of the applicant. First bail appeal/application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 11.7.2019 with observation that the appellant would be at liberty to revive his application after recording statement of Ram Bodh and Arjun Prasad. 3. This appeal has been preferred under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against impugned order dated 25.02.2021 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Sultanpur in second bail application 496 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 9 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 34, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Munshiganj, District-Amethi, whereby the bail application of the appellant/applicant has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid crime. Learned counsel for appellant further submits that the statement of Ram Bodh and Arjun Prasad was already recorded by the trial court, a certified copy of which has been annexed with this appeal. As per the statement, the applicant was armed with lathi and danda which is not a dangerous weapon. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused namely Subhash Chandra Srivastava has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 765 of 2020. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitle for bail. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 25.02.2018. Learned counsel further submits that if the appellant is released on bail, he would not misuse liberty of bail and is ready to cooperate in the trial. 6. Learned A.G.A. though opposed the prayer for bail but could not place anything before this Court so as to bring any circumstance existing, justifying denial of bail to accused-applicant when he is already in jail for a long time. 7. Supreme Court in State through C.B.I. Vs. Amar Mani Tripathi 2005 (8) SCC 21 has also observed that normally bail should have been granted unless there exist circumstances/factors justifying denial thereof. 7. Supreme Court in State through C.B.I. Vs. Amar Mani Tripathi 2005 (8) SCC 21 has also observed that normally bail should have been granted unless there exist circumstances/factors justifying denial thereof. Some of such circumstances have been stated as under: "(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." 8. In Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs CBI Through Its Director, 2007 (1) SCC 70 while recognizing that personal liberty is a valuable constitutional right recognized under Article 21, Court observed that while considering question of bail, judicial approach balancing personal liberty as well as interest of the society and also other relevant factors must be observed. Court further held that personal liberty of an accused or convict is also a fundamental right but if the circumstances so justify, it can be eclipsed. The length for which an accused has remained in jail before conviction, i.e., during investigation or trial, is a relevant consideration for the reason that in case ultimately the incumbent is found not guilty, i.e. having not committed any offence, it would be a travesty of justice to keep such a person in jail for years together and denial of personal liberty in such a case though may be mitigated by awarding appropriate compensation but cannot appropriately be compensated at all. Simply because Court takes a long time in trial, it will not be justified to keep a person in jail on the ground that Court or the prosecution is not efficient enough in completing trial in a reasonably short period and the incumbent must remain in jail, even though ultimately he may be found innocent. In fact, if a person is acquitted after a long and delayed trial, though incumbent was throughout in jail, even Judicial Officer would be having a feeling of contrition facing a situation where a person has served sufficiently a long term in imprisonment though, is found innocent and ultimately acquitted. In fact, if a person is acquitted after a long and delayed trial, though incumbent was throughout in jail, even Judicial Officer would be having a feeling of contrition facing a situation where a person has served sufficiently a long term in imprisonment though, is found innocent and ultimately acquitted. No uniform principle can be laid down since every matter would depend on the circumstances of each case and it cannot be said that a person has remained in jail for long time, for that reason alone bail must be granted, but the period during which an incumbent has been remained in jail, during investigation or trial is a relevant factor. These are certain guidelines laid down in State through C.B.I. v. Amar Mani Tripathi (supra) were reiterated in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs CBI (supra). 9. In view of the above, after hearing the rival submissions of the parties, and perused the record, without expressing any opinion on merits, I find that it is a fit case for grant of bail of appellant/applicant. 10. Impugned order dated 25.02.2021 is hereby set aside. 11. The appeal is hereby allowed. 12. Let appellant-Anwar Ali be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence of witnesses and shall not commit any offence. (ii) The appellant 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. (iii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her 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) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her 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. (iv) In case, the appellant 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 appellant 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. (v) The appellant 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 appellant 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. (vi) The accused/appellant shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. (vii) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. (viii) 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.