Allahabad High Court

Sukkhu vs State Of U.P. on 12 March, 2024

Author:
Rajeev Misra

Bench:
Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:44029

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4734 of 2024

Applicant :- Sukkhu

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Payal Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Ranvijay Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State

2. Perused the record.

3. Instant application for bail has been filed by applicant-Sukkhu seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 137 of 2023 under
Sections 498A
,
,
,
,
,
120B
,
,
I.P.C. and
Sections 3
/
DP Act, Police Station- Kapsethi, District-Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.

4. Present application for bail came up for orders on 08.02.2024 before His Lordship Hon'ble Deepak Verma, J and His Lordship passed the following order:

"1. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with co-accused, namely, Muneeb @ Rajmani, who has been granted bail by the Bench of Hon'ble Rajeev Misra J. vide order dated 21.12.2023.

2.
In view of order passed by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1503 of 2023 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.3241 of 2023 (
Pradhani Jani vs. The State of Odisha
) and SLP (Criminal) No.7203 of 2023 (
Sajid vs. State of U.P.
), let this matter be placed before appropriate Bench after getting nomination from Hon'ble The Chief Justice, if possible, on 19.02.2024 as fresh.

Order Date :- 8.2.2024 "

5. Subsequent to above order this bail application came up for orders before this Court on 19.02.2024, and this Court passed the following order:

"Heard Mr. Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. submits that he has not received instructions in the matter.

In view of above, hearing of present application for bail is adjourned.

Matter shall re-appear, as fresh, on 04.03.2024.

Learned A.G.A. shall ensure that requisite instructions are positively received by him before the next date fixed.

Order Date :- 19.2.2024."

6. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submits that co-accused Muneeb Urf Rajmani has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 21.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.51698 of 2023 (Muneeb Urf Rajmani Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference the order dated 21.12.2023 is reproduced herein-under:

"1. Heard Mr. Deena Nath, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Muneeb Urf Rajmani seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 137 of 2023 under
Sections 452
,
I.P.C., Police Station-Kapsethi, District-Varanasi during the pendency of trial.

3. Record shows that an F.I.R. dated 12.08.2023 was lodged by first-informant Smt. Rekha Devi and was registered as Case Crime No. 137 of 2023 under
Sections 498-A
,
,
,
,
,
,
I.P.C., and 3/4
D.P. Act
, Police Station-Kapsethi, District- Gomti (Commissionerate Varanasi). In the aforesaid F.I.R., one person namely Sanjay Bind (husband) has been nominated as named accused, whereas, father-in-law, two Jeth, mother-in-law, both the Jethani and alleged one Tantrik have also been arraigned as accused.

4. It is apposite to mention here that in the day, date and time column of the F.I.R. no particulars have been mentioned. However, in the body of the F.I.R. the occurrence relatable to the present applicant is said to have occurred in the year 2015.

5. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. Applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Attention of the Court was then invited to the F.I.R. and on basis thereof, it is urged that allegations made in the F.I.R. relate to the occurrence of the year 2015. The F.I.R. giving rise to the present criminal proceedings was lodged on 12.08.2023 i.e. after expiry of a period of almost 8 years. He therefore, contends that the F.I.R. qua the present applicant is highly belated. However, neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of the first informant recorded under
Section 161
Cr.P.C.,therefore, there is no explanation with regard to the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in
P. Rajagopal And Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu
, AIR 2019 SC 2866/2019(5) SCC 40, the learned counsel for applicant contends that since the F.I.R. is highly belated and there being no explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the present criminal proceedings against applicant is itself not maintainable. As such, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

6. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 08.09.2023. As such, he has undergone more than three months of incarceration. The police report in terms of
Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. Therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. Upto this stage, no such circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He, therefore, submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present application for bail with reference to the record at this stage.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of accused and accusation made coupled with the fact that, the F.I.R. giving rise to the present criminal proceedings was lodged on 12.08.2023 i.e. after expiry of a period of almost 8 years, as such, the F.I.R. qua the present applicant is highly belated, however, neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of the first informant recorded under
Section 161
Cr.P.C., there is no explanation with regard to the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the judgment of Supreme Court in
P. Rajagopal
(Supra), the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the police report in terms of
Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet inspite of above the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant- Muneeb Urf Rajmani, be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A
IPC
.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A
IPC
.

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

11. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

Order Date :- 21.12.2023 "

7. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is the father-in-law of the first informant yet the case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of co-accused Muneeb Urd Rajmani, who has already been enlarged on bail. He also contends that there is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be so distinguished from the aforesaid bailed out co-accused so as to deny him bail. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the order dated 21.12.2023 of co-accused Muneeb Urd Rajmani, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

8. Even otherwise applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 26.09.2023. As such, he has under-gone more than five months of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of
Section 173 (2)
Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. Upto this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial

9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the prayer for bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon consideration of material on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that co-accused Muneeb Urd Rajmani has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2023, even though applicant is the father in law of first informant yet the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such distinguish feature on the basis of which the case of present applicant could be distinguished from that of co-accused Muneeb Urd Rajmani so as to deny him bail, the police report in terms of
Section 173 (2)
Cr.P.C. has already been submitted therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stand crystallised, yet the learned AG.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of Apex Court in
Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra
, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone therefore irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present applicant for bail, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

11. Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed.

12. Let the applicant-Sukkhu involved in aforesaid case crime number 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

13. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send him to prison

Order Date :- 12.3.2024

YK