Allowed

Kadir @ Aadil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2025BAIL/1800/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application for theft-related BNS offences where the applicant was not named in the FIR and recovery lacked independent witnesses. The court held criminal history alone cannot deny bail and enlarged the applicant on bail with conditions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kadir @ Aadil vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30723

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1800 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Kadir @ Aadil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Singh Rajput Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 702 of 2024, under Sections 331(4), 305(A), 317(2) BNS, Police Station- Sikandra, District- Agra during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. On the basis of information furnished by an informer, the applicant was arrested after more than 15 days of the alleged incident. False recovery of ornaments made of yellow and white metal, Indian currency of Rs 7,800/- and two bells made of brass has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the bail application and para nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 08.1.2024. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned AGA and the counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

¶11

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery.

¶12

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it

¶13

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 applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court 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.

¶14

In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:-

¶15

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a historysheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶16

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶17

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognized by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. 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 .

¶18

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. Learned A.G.A. for the State and the counsel for the informant have not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interest of the public or State.

¶19

Further, the applicant has remained confined for almost four months, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial and without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Let the applicant Kadir @ Aadil involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶21