The Allahabad High Court rejected a bail application filed by Kuwarpal in a cheating and robbery case. Despite repeated defaults in appearance leading to warrants and his claim of innocence, the court denied bail citing high risk of misuse given his arrest in another case and prior conduct.
Application for release on bail rejected; applicant remains in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42434 of 2022
Applicant :- Kuwarpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1.Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manu Raj Singh, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.
2.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 42 of 2016, under Section 395, 412 IPC, Police Station Thakurdwara, District Moradabad.
3.Earlier the applicant had been granted bail in the aforesaid case by means of an order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the learned Session Judge, Moradabad. However, the applicant did not appear before the learned court below and on 06.11.2019, non-bailable warrants were issued to ensure his presence. The warrants were cancelled on the application of the applicant but thereafter again the applicant committed a default in appearance and on 07.02.2022, the court again issued warrant against the applicant. This warrant was also got recalled on 18.02.2022 but the applicant committed default in appearance again and the court had to issued warrants against the applicant on 22.02.2021.
4.It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 28.07.2022. It has also been stated in the affidavit that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with any evidence and in such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is also stated in the affidavit that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will fully cooperate in the investigation.
5.The applicant was arrested on 27.05.2022 in another case and the learned counsel for the applicant has taken the plea that because the applicant was arrested in another case, he could not appear in the present case.
6.The aforesaid submission is apparently misconceived because the aforesaid fact indicates that the applicant has committed in default of appearance repeatedly in the years 2019, 2020 and 2021 whereas he has been arrested in other case on 27.05.2022. The aforesaid conduct of the applicant in repetitively failing to appear before the learned Trial Court and also the fact that he has been accused of committing some other offence and he has been arrested in connection with that case, indicates that there is every possibility in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again misuse the liberty.
7.In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.
2. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
(Emphasis supplied)
Order Date :- 15.11.2022 Ashish Pd.
Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.11.21 18:38:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant's repeated defaults in appearance and arrest in a separate case warrant the denial of bail despite claims of innocence.
Whether the right to presumption of innocence and general rule of bail grant overrides the danger likelihood due to repeated defaults.
Whether bail must be granted where there are indications of misuse of liberty due to prior defaults and current arrest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.Explained¶11
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kuwarpal
Subhash Vidyarthi
Ashish Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
