This judgment allows a bail application moved under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for accused Ankit Gautam involved in offences under Sections 356, 379, 411 IPC. The court finds it a fit case considering explained criminal history, jail tenure, and pandemic circumstances.
Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with specified conditions.
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. - 46853 of 2021
Applicant :- Ankit Gautam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Khalid Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Mohammad Khalid, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Siddharth Shankar Mishra, the learned State Law Officer for the State.
This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Ankit Gautam for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.344 of 2021, under Sections 356, 379, 411 IPC registered at Police StationKasganj, District- Kasganj.
The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 20.9.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Sri Devendra Singh against the unknown persons before P.S. Kasganj, District Kasganj being FIR no.0344 on 29.6.2021 at 23:21 hours under Sections 356, 379 IPC relatable to the commission of offence with an allegation that the complainant happens to be the resident of Mahavar, Police Station- Kasganj, District- Kasganj and on unfateful day i.e. 22.6.2021, the complainant was going to a certain place and near the river known to be black river adjacent to Maratha Hotel in a two wheeler, 2 unknown persons came and they snatched away a golden chain from the mother of the complainant and thereafter ran away. He has further argued that he has not been named in the first information report, however, he has been roped in the present case.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued on the strength of the supplementary affidavit which he had filed pursuant to the order passed by this court on 9.11.2021 whereby he has been directed to file a copy of the recovery memo which happens to be in the shape of an FIR No.350, wherein certain yellow metals, jewellery and a countrymade pistol has sought to be shown to be recovered from the applicant. He has further argued that the recovery so sought to be made from the applicant is a planted one and there was no independent
witness.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention towards paragraph 9 of the bail application so as to contend that he has been explained criminal history as so far as Case Crime No.346 of 2021 is concerned, the same is post lodging of the present FIR in which the applicant has been bailed out by the court below on 16.10.2021 at page 25 of the bail application and so far as Case Crime No.350 of 2021 is concerned, the applicant has been bailed out on 11.8.2021 by court below order whereof is at page 19 of the application and so far as Case Crime No.351 of 2021 is concerned, the same is post lodging of the present FIR and the applicant has been enlarged on bail on 16.10.2021 at page 22 and Case Crime No.353 of 2021 in which the applicant has been bailed out by court below on 13.8.2021 order whereof as page 21 of the bail application. He has further argued that the applicant has been further bailed out in proceeding in Case Crime No.217 of 2021 by coordinate bench of this Court on 9.11.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.46833 of 2021 and he is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 1.7.2021. If he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty, he be enlarged on bail.
Countering the said submission, the learned State Law Officer has opposed the bail while arguing that offence has been committed by the applicant, as such he has been proceeded in the case in question and merely because he was not named in the FIR will not be a ground to hold the applicant innocent and recovery was sought to be made from applicant but he could not dispute the fact that the criminal history has been properly explained and applicant is languishing in jail since 1.7.2021.
Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the criminal history has been properly explained and applicant is languishing in jail since 1.7.2021, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.
Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Ankit Gautam involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.
Order Date :- 4.3.2022 piyush
Digitally signed by PIYUSH KUMAR Date: 2022.03.05 17:45:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in the present bail application.
Whether the applicant's criminal history and jail tenure are relevant to grant of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of IndiaReferred¶14
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ankit Gautam
State of U.P.
Vikas Budhwar
Piyush Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
