Monday, April 29, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Allahabad High Court grants bail to man in cheating case, says a person’s right to life, liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution

The Allahabad High Court while allowing the bail application said that a person’s right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt.

A Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Puneet Verma.

The bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Puneet Verma with a prayer to release him on bail in Case under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station – Quarsi, District–Aligarh, during pendency of trial.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. It is submitted that the applicant is innocent and no money is found embezzled by him and no embezzled money is found in the account of the applicant and no recovery of money has been made from the applicant during the course of investigation.

He further submitted that the co-accused person, namely, Puneet Verma has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of the Court vide order dated 08.02.2024, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. He has been languishing in jail since 22.06.2023. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means.

Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

Per contra A.G.A has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, he could not dispute the fact that the co-accused person has already been released on bail.

“In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are 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 applicants in past attempted to evade the process of law. 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.

The well-known principle of “Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty,” gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person’s right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one’s life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable.

The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the applicant for the alleged offence, submissions of the counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.

The Court ordered that,

Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (one should be a family member) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

(iv) The 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.

(v) The 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.

(vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

(vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about the new residential address in writing.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before the Court.

spot_img

News Update