The Allahabad High Court has said that pendency of other criminal cases against the accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori heard a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Sailesh Yadav.
The bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Sailesh Yadav under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case for offence punishable under Sections 307, 395, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Deogaon, District Azamgarh, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Incharge Special Judge (E.C Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh vide order dated 14.3.2024.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case due to ulterior motives.
It is further submitted that the first information report dated 14.11.2023 has been lodged under Section 307, IPC against four unknown persons.
It is also submitted that after about two months of the lodging of the first information report, the applicant and four other accused were arrested after receiving information from the police informer.
It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and on the basis of a confessional statement, the applicant has been implicated in the case.
He has next argued that the applicant has criminal history of ten other cases related to the years 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 in which he has been granted bail. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 8.1.2024.
Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in Ash Mohammad Vs Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446 and Prabhakar Tiwari Vs State of U.P and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 wherein the Apex Court has observed that pendency of other criminal cases against the accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
Per contra, A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail 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.
The Court said that it is a well settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception and refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“No material or circumstances has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witnesses in previous criminal history.
Keeping in mind, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail”, the Court observed.
The Court ordered that,
Let the applicant Sailesh Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions :-
(i) 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.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) 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 of CrPC.
(iv) 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 the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.