Kamruddin vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30879

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7426 of 2025

Applicant :- Kamruddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kumar Shukla,Mukhtar Alam,Yawar Mukhtar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Sri Deepak Dubey, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant. The same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 723 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Nandgram, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and the informant were engaged in a business transaction since long. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the statement of account of the Kotak Mahindra Bank annexed as Annexure No.5 of the Bail Application. There is neither any allegation in the FIR nor in the statement of the informant that the applicant had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. A pure and simple breach of contract does not constitute an offence of cheating. Non payment of the dues would not constitute an offence for cheating. The applicant has not forged or manipulated any documents. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 29 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 16.08.2024 and 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

¶11

has criminal antecedents.

¶12

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the applicant and the informant were engaged in a business transaction earlier also. In this regard the statement of account of Kotak Mahindra Bank has been annexed. There is neither any allegation in the FIR nor in the statement of the informant that the applicant had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Non payment of the dues would not constitute an offence for cheating

¶13

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

¶18

Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 .

¶19

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.

¶20

Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than six months and 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.

¶21

Let the applicant Kamruddin 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:

¶22

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶23

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

¶24

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶25