Pitambar vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.—This is an application on behalf of the accused-applicant Pitambar s/o Jaipal for release on bail in Case Crime No. 33 of 2008 (S.S.T. No. 67/2003) under Sections 147, 504, 506 and 364A, I.P.C. P.S. Jasrana, district Firozabad.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Accused-applicant was on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 33 of 2008 under the order of this Court dated 10.11.2003. His case was committed to the Court of Session by the learned Magistrate and he remained present on 24.11.2003 and 20.2.2004 in the Court of Sessions Judge, district Firozabad. Later on he had not appeared in the case on several dates so orders for issuance of N.B.W., notices to the sureties were passed. Process under Sections 82 and 83, Code of Criminal Procedure were also issued against him and on 16.4.2007 u/s 83, Code of Criminal Procedure his property was also attached, only then he appeared on 11.5.2007 and surrendered himself in the Court and applied for bail. Vide order dated 5.9.2008, his this bail application was rejected by the Session Court.

As per prosecution case, main role was assigned to the applicant in the case and victim Prabal Bhartiya was said to have been recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant. Under the order of this Court, the applicant was released on bail but later on he did not appear before the trial court. When the proceedings were started, the only ground taken by the applicant for his absence was that his counsel has not informed him about the proceedings of the case properly, so he could not appear in the trial court on the dated fixed. He remained absent about 3 and 1/2 years from the Court on various dates. If his counsel had not informed him about the dates and proceedings, it was also his duty to know about the proceedings of his case but why he did not make any effort in this regard, it is not sufficiently explained on his behalf. Learned A.G.A. argued that during the aforesaid period, i.e., February, 2004 to May, 2007 he was again found involved in four cases, being Case Crime No. 188 of 2004 u/s 25, Arms Act, Case Crime No. 110 of 2005 u/s 110, G. Act and Case Crime No. 130 of 2007 u/s 364A, I.P.C. and Case Crime No. 131 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, I.P.C. Learned A.G.A. argued that this all shows that the applicant has misused the liberty of bail and due to his absence for 3 and 1/2 years, further proceedings of this case remained in abeyance. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that he was falsely involved in Case Crime No. 130 of 2007 and Case Crime No. 131 of 2007 and he was released on bail by the Court in both the cases and he has placed before the Court the copy of the bail order. From the copy of the bail order in Case Crime No. 130 of 2007 (S.S.T. No. 108 of 2007), it reveals that correct facts were not placed before the Court and it was pleaded that he has no criminal history, considering this aspect of the case the applicant was released on bail. Now when the process u/s 83, Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against him and his property was attached only then he has appeared in the Court on 11.5.2007. Copy of the order-sheet is also available on record showing that still further proceedings in the case has not taken place and still charge has not been framed. There are several accused in the case and due to absence of one or the other case is not proceeding further. Order-sheet also shows that notices were also issued to his sureties but they have not produced him in the Court.

It hardly requires to be stated that once a person released on bail in serious criminal case where the punishment is quite deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the victim and also create problem of law and order situation. Release on bail in serious and heinous offence larger interest of the public and State always matters in granting the bail or not.

Seeing all the circumstances and considering the arguments of the parties counsel and also considering the facts of the case narrated above, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the application for bail of the applicant is hereby rejected.