1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, Ajay Singh @ Don with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 277 of 2023, under Sections 323, 325, 386, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Sukhapura, District Ballia, during pendency of trial.
3. As per allegations in the FIR, on 08.11.2023 at about 04:30 pm, when the informant was going from his shop towards Bhagwati Temple, he met Vikki Singh, seeing whom the informant went towards him, where Shivanand Rajbhar Lala was also present. When Vikki Singh went inside the school, by that time the applicant entered and dragging the informant inside, demanded money from him and assaulted him, due to which he sustained injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to political rivalry. The applicant has not caused any incident nor has demanded any money. The informant has sustained injuries on his left forearm, right leg and left leg, the same are on the non vital part of the body. No grievous injury has been caused to the informant/injured. No motive or intention to cause such injury has been assigned to the applicant. He has next stated that criminal history of the applicant has properly been explained in para 9 of the affidavit. Applicant is languishing in jail since 01.12.2023. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
5. Per contra learned counsel for informant as well as learned 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, however, they could not dispute the factual matrix of the case. Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant.
6. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, 2012:INSC:414 : (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:-
"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter 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."
7. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020:INSC:89 : 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.
8. 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. 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.
9. 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 said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022:INSC:690 : 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
10. 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. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused-applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness.
11. 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 learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties 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 new residential address in writing.
13. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
14. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
