Allowed

Bhagwati Raidas v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2022/3974/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to Bhagwati Raidas in an Arms Act trial. Court noted lack of recovered incriminating articles and procedural lapses in recovery. Bail granted subject to personal bond and conditions to prevent witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond and two sureties and compliance with specified conditions including non-tampering and court attendance.

Bhagwati Raidas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3974 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bhagwati Raidas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Abdul Rafique,Vineet Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Abdul Rafique, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Bhagwati Raidas under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 438 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 5/25 Arms Act, registered at Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Sitapur during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that no incriminating articles has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is further submitted that alleged recovery of three country made pistols, 12 bore and some unprepared country made pistols is made without complying the mandatory provisions of Section under Section 100 of Cr.P.C. and there is no independent / public witness of the alleged recovery. It is further submitted that no other cogent evidence has been collected during the course of investigation.

¶8

It is next contended that the applicant has criminal history of two other cases as case crime no. 62 of 1999 and 67 of 2004 which have been duly explained and in the second case, the applicant has been acquitted by the court below vide judgment and order dated 20.11.2004.

¶9

There is no other criminal antecedent to his credit. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 19.12.2021, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶10

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they would not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶12

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , 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. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let applicant, Bhagwati Raidas be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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:

¶14

(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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

(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

¶17

313 of Cr.P.C.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶20

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

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.

¶22

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶23

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶24

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 31.8.2022 aks

¶27

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.06 12:46:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhagwati Raidas v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwati Raidas v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tansen and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Shakeel Ahmad Warsi and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Kamlesh Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Rakesh Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kuddus Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy Home Deptt U.P. Govt Civil Sectt Lko

Munendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.