The Allahabad High Court while allowing the bail application observed that 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.
A Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Jogendra @ Mukesh @ Munna @ Lamboo.
The bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Jogendra @ Mukesh @ Munna @ Lamboo with a prayer to release him on bail in Case under sections 342, 395, 412, 34 IPC, Police Station – Kavi Nagar, District–Ghaziabad, during pendency of trial.
As per the allegation in the FIR, when the informant was traveling to Gurugram carrying some cash with him, three unknown persons came and one boy broke the window glass of the vehicle from driver side and two boys caught hold of the informant. All the three accused persons took the vehicle of the informant and dropped Saurabh, who was also traveling with the informant. They took away three mobiles, credit card, adhar card as well as some cash.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case only on the suspicion.
He further submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and after six days of the incident, the Police intercepted Nitin and Saurabh Sirohi on whose statement, the name of the applicant surfaced. The confession statement given to the police cannot be relied on as a piece of evidence, as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
He also submitted that the other co-accused persons, namely, Saurabh Sharma, Saurav Sirohi, Nitin Sharma and Chandraveer Alias Kaluwa have already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Court by orders dated 13.02.2024, 01.04.2024, 09.04.2024, 10.04.2024, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.
He has been languishing in jail since 27.02.2024. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means.
Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Per contra A.G.A has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, he could not dispute the fact that the co-accused person has already been released on bail.
The Court observed that,
In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicants in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.
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. A person’s right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she 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 reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. A.G.A has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused applicant(s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness.
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the applicant for the alleged offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail”, the Court further observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered that,
Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (one should be a family member) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
(vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about the new residential address in writing.
(viii) 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 applicants fail 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.