Anis alias General vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—Heard, Sri M. P. S. Chauhan, advocate appearing for the applicant and A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

An F.I.R. was lodged on 25.5.2008 at 10.00 a.m., by the complainant Satendra Pal Singh at P. S. Quarsi, district Aligarh, where a case at Crime No. 369 of 2008, u/s 380/411 was registered against unknown persons. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that one mobile Nokia 2600 having sim card bearing No. 9837036373, licenced revolver 32 bore, bearing No. F. G. 33271 with six live cartridges and Rs. 2,000 were stolen from the room of complainant on 25.5.2008 at about 5.30 a.m. The allegation against applicant Anis alias General is that stolen revolver and sim of mobile were recovered from his possession on 2.6.2008.

The main submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant in support of the bail application is that no such incident as alleged by prosecution had occurred and fabricating a false story of theft and recovery of revolver etc. the applicant has been falsely roped in this case.

Next submission is that there is no criminal history against the applicant, who is in jail since 3.6.2008.

It is further submitted that at the most offence u/s 411, I.P.C. would be made out against the applicant, because he is not named in the F.I.R. of theft and since maximum sentence u/s 411, I.P.C. is 3 years imprisonment, hence on this ground the applicant deserves bail now, as he is in jail more than 11 months.

It is further submitted by learned Counsel that the applicant was apprehended by the police from his house and mother of the applicant had sent telegram, as is evident from the order dated 1.7.2008, passed by the court below in Bail Application No. 2115 of 2008. (Annexure-3).

It is also submitted that the applicant used to sell bangles in Aligarh and police wanted to engage him for mukhbiri, for which the applicant was not inclined and hence being annoyed, he has been falsely roped in this case.

It is further submitted that the applicant is young boy and he will be ruined in the company of hardened criminals, if detained further in jail.

A.G.A. has opposed the bail application contending that stolen licenced revolver and sim card of the complainant have been recovered from the possession of applicant and he should not be released in this heinous crime.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties counsel, in this heinous crime, the applicant does not deserve bail, as stolen licenced revolver and mobile sim are said to have been recovered from the applicant''s possession, for which there is sufficient prima facie evidence.

In my considered opinion, the applicant cannot be admitted to bail on the basis of the period of detention in jail also. In this regard reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and Ors. (63) 2008 ACC 115: 2008 (3) ACR 3216 (SC), in which the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per se illegal. If the applicant has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under-trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the bail application of the applicant Anis alias General is hereby rejected.

The trial court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant within four months, if possible, applying the provisions of Section 309, Cr. P.C. and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial court concerned for necessary action.