Order on Board

27/06/2022

1. Earlier the applicant had filed MCRC No.4780 of 2021 and MCRC No.1105 of 2022 which were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide orders dated 28.07.2021 & 21.02.2022 respectively.

2. The applicant has preferred this third bail application under Section

439 of Cr.P.C. as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.43/2021 registered at Police Station Golbazar, District Raipur, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegation against the present applicant is that he along with other co-

accused person entered the house of complainant- Alveena Ahmed, broke the lock of Almirah and stole one golden chain and four gold rings worth Rs.1,60,000/-. On report being lodged to the above effect, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused person.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that applicant has not committed any offence nor is involved in commission of any offence as alleged against him, applicant is in jail since 13.06.2021, charge sheet has already been filed and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time and, therefore, the applicant be released on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the matter of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Para-22 of the said judgment as under:

22.From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

8. In the matter of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5598 of 2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated certain factors which are to be kept in mind while considering the matters for grant of bail to the accused. In Para-57 of the said judgment, it has been observed as under:

57.While considering an application for the grant of bail under Article 226 in a suitable case, the Hight Court must consider the settled factors which emerge from the precedents of this Court.

These factors can be summarized as follows:

i. The nature of the alleged offence, the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of a conviction;

ii. Whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the witness or being a threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

iii. The possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial or the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;

iv. The antecedents of and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;

v. Whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence are made out, on the basis of the allegations as they stand, in the FIR; and vi. The significant interest of the public or the State and other similar considerations.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegation against the present applicant, the fact that applicant is in jail since 13.06.2021, in particular the pre-trial detention of the applicant, who is 20 years old, keeping in view the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami case and Sanjay Chandra case (supra)