Panjabi vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33675

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8152 of 2025

Applicant :- Panjabi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.81 of 2024 under Sections 380, 411 of I.P.C., Police StationRajawali, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant was arrested on 01.07.2024 along with two other co-accused and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The alleged motorcycle was driven by the co-accused, Vipin Kumar. Recovery of ornaments of yellow and white metal has been shown at the pointing out of the applicant from an open place. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Recovery of Indian currency of Rs. 100/- has also been shown from the applicant. The said amount belongs to him. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no. 18 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 01.07.2024. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has a criminal history.

¶11

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court is of the prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

"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."

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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 has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interest of the public or State.

¶18

Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than eight 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.

¶19

Let the applicant- Panjabi, involved in 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

¶20

concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶21