Back
2024 Supreme(All) 609
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.
Kamta Prasad - Applicant
Vs.
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko - Opposite Party
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 3590 of 2024
Decided On : 02-04-2024
For the Applicant : Vikas Verma
For the Opposite Party : G.A.
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court to grant bail based on the lack of specific evidence and the lower court's rejection of bail without convincing justification.
Headnote:
Bail Application - Accused Applicant - The court granted bail to the accused applicant, Kamta Prasad, involved in a criminal case, based on the lack of specific evidence and the rejection of bail without convincing justification by the lower court.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-applicant, Kamta Prasad, filed a bail application in a criminal case involving multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The applicant argued the lack of specific evidence and highlighted the rejection of bail without convincing justification by the lower court.
Finding of the Court:
The court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments presented, granted bail to the accused applicant, Kamta Prasad.
Issues: The main issue was the grant of bail to the accused applicant based on the lack of specific evidence and the rejection of bail without convincing justification by the lower court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to grant bail to the accused applicant, Kamta Prasad, based on the lack of specific evidence and the rejection of bail without convincing justification by the lower court.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the accused applicant, Kamta Prasad, subject to specific conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
2. This bail application has been filed by the accused-applicant, Kamta Prasad, who is involved in Case Crime No.153 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 336, 353, 504, 506 , 188/34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that there is no evidence on the basis of which specific role can be said to have been assigned to the applicant in the commission of offence. He has also brought to the notice of this Court an order passed on 26.10.2013 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in favour of co-accused. From perusal of the record and the impugned order, it is gathered that bail has been rejected by the court below without recording any plausible justification. Reasons for rejecting the bail by the Court below are not convincing for the lack of corroborating evidence.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and rival contention of learned Additional Government Advocate, without commenting upon the merit of the case, I am of the opinion that the accused applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
6. Let the accused/applicant, Kamta Prasad, involved in Case Crime No. Crime No.153 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 336, 353, 504, 506, 188/34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar be released on bail subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will furnish a personal bond with two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(ii) The applicant will appear and strictly comply following terms of bond executed under Section 437 (3) of Chapter 33 of Cr.P.C.-
(a) applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter.
(b) applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and
(c) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall cooperate with investigation /trial.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vii) The applicant shall remain present, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 him in accordance with law.
