# Criminal case No. 1497 of 2012, State v. Mansa Ram and others , under section

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1460
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-11-05
- **Case number:** P.S. Taroon District Faizabad relating to crime No.219A of 2010
- **Bench:** Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/criminal-case-no-1497-of-2012-state-v-mansa-ram-and-others-under-section-42321
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 439grant of Bail-applicant is son of license
holder-while driving Zeep hit the Indica
car of excise inspector-with intention to
kill-other co-accused already granted
bail-applicant spent more than 5 months
in jail-considering law as developed by
Apex Court in State of Kerela Vs. Raneefdelay in conclusion of Trial-so many
years
spent
in
custody-violation
of
3 All] Rajendra Shukla V. State of U.P.

1461
Article 21 of constitution of Indiaentitled for Bail.

Held: Para-5 and 6

This Court is fully conscious that the
personal liberty is a very precious
fundamental right and it should be
curtailed
only
when
it
becomes
imperative, according to the particular
facts and circumstances of the case.

The
accused
applicant
is
a
public
servant, and, as such, there is no
likelihood of the accused fleeing from
justice
and
tampering
with
the
prosecution
witnesses.Both
of
them
relate to ensure the fair trial of the case.
Case Law discussed:
(2012) 1 SCC 40; AIR 1950 SC 27; (2011) 1
SCC 784

## Text

1460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

200,204 and section 461 has not been
considered while setting a side the order of
taking cognizance. As this Court differs
with the opinion expressed in aforesaid two
judgments by Single Judge of this Court,
therefore, the record of this case be placed
before Chief justice of this court with a
request to form a larger bench to decide the
controversy in question on the following
formulated questions:-

1. What procedure ought to have
been adopted by the Magistrate before
taking cognizance of offence and issuing
process against the accused on a report
made by the police officer in a case which
discloses,
after
investigation,
the
commission of a non-cognizable offence ?

2. Whether the Magistrate could
pass an order issuing process against the
accused persons on a report made by the
police officer in a case which discloses,
after investigation, the commission of a
non-cognizable
offence
without
examination of police officer and the
witnesses keeping in view of the provisio
added to section 200 of Cr.P.C. without
mentioning in the order specifying
section 190(a) of Cr.P.C.?

3. Whether the order passed by the
Magistrate issuing process on a report
made by the police officer in a case which
discloses,
after
investigation,
the
commission of a non-cognizable offence
without
specifying
the
details
as
mentioned in question No.2, shall deemed
to have been passes under Section 190(b)
?

15. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that in
this case the Magistrate has issued the
warrant against the petitioners. It is not
borne out from the record whether the
summon has ever been served upon the
accused persons or not. Therefore, no
coercive steps shall be taken against the
petitioner and further proceedings of
Criminal case No. 1497 of 2012, State vs.
Mansa Ram and others , under section
323,504I.P.C.,
P.S.
Taroon
District
Faizabad relating to crime No.219A of 2010
shall remain suspended till further orders of
this Court or till receipt of answers of the
referred questions by the larger Bench of
this Court,which ever is earlier.

16. The office is directed to send the
record of this case through Registrar of this
court to place the same before Hob'ble
Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.11.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAEED-UZ-ZAMAN SIDDIQI, J.

Bail No. 5146 of 2012

Rajendra Shukla

 ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 439grant of Bail-applicant is son of license
holder-while driving Zeep hit the Indica
car of excise inspector-with intention to
kill-other co-accused already granted
bail-applicant spent more than 5 months
in jail-considering law as developed by
Apex Court in State of Kerela Vs. Raneefdelay in conclusion of Trial-so many
years
spent
in
custody-violation
of
3 All] Rajendra Shukla V. State of U.P.

1461
Article 21 of constitution of Indiaentitled for Bail.

Held: Para-5 and 6

This Court is fully conscious that the
personal liberty is a very precious
fundamental right and it should be
curtailed
only
when
it
becomes
imperative, according to the particular
facts and circumstances of the case.

The
accused
applicant
is
a
public
servant, and, as such, there is no
likelihood of the accused fleeing from
justice
and
tampering
with
the
prosecution
witnesses.Both
of
them
relate to ensure the fair trial of the case.
Case Law discussed:
(2012) 1 SCC 40; AIR 1950 SC 27; (2011) 1
SCC 784

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman
Siddiqi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
accused applicant as well as learned AGA
for the state and perused the FIR and other
relevant papers filed in support of the Bail
Application.

2. This is the second bail application,
first of which was rejected vide order dated
2405.2012. on the ground that the Excise
Inspector was travelling in Indica Car,
which was hit by the accused applicant
with intention to kill. The accused
applicant was driving the Jeep and he is the
son of licence holder, who is the mother of
the accused applicant. This is not only a
case of attempt to kill but is a challenge to
the authority of the State.

3. The second bail application has
been moved on the ground that five
months have elapsed and nothing concrete
has taken place in the case.There are
similar allegations against all the accused
persons and the co-accused Adalat Ram
Shukla and Ashok Kumar Tiwari have
been granted bail by the Learned Sessions
Judge,
Bahraich
vide
order
dated
07.04.2012. The accused is in jail since
27.03.2012. Reliance was placed upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v.
CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, in
which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as
under:-

" In Bihar Fodder Scam [Laloo
Prasad case, (2002) 9 SCC 372] this court,
taking into consideration the seriousness of
the charges alleged and the maximum
sentence of imprisonment that could be
imposed including the fact that the
appellants were in jail for a period of more
than six months as on the date of passing
of the order, was of the view that the
further detention of the appellants as
pretrial prisoners would not serve any
purpose."

4. While deciding that case, Hon'ble
Apex Court has relied upon the law laid
down by it in the case of A.K. Gopalan v.
State of Madras, reported in AIR 1950 SC
27 and has held that as under:-

"The law of bail, like any other
branch of law, has its own philosophy, and
occupies an important place in the
administration of justice and the concept of
bail emerges from the conflict between the
police power to restrict liberty of a man
who is alleged to have committed a crime,
and presumption of innocence in favour of
the alleged criminal. An accused is not
detained in custody with the object of
punishing him on the assumption of his
guilt."
1462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

5. This Court is fully conscious that
the personal liberty is a very precious
fundamental right and it should be
curtailed only when it becomes imperative,
according to the particular facts and
circumstances of the case.

6. The accused applicant is a public
servant, and, as such, there is no likelihood
of the accused fleeing from justice and
tampering
with
the
prosecution
witnesses.Both of them relate to ensure the
fair trial of the case.

7. In State of Kerala v. Raneef
(2011) 1 SCC 784, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held as under:-

"In deciding bail applications an
important factor which should certainly be
taken into consideration by the Court is the
delay in concluding the trial. Often this
takes several years, and if the accused is
denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who
will restore so many years of his life spend
in
custody?
Is
Article
21
of
the
Constitution, which is the most basic of all
the fundamental rights in our constitution,
not violated in such a case? Of course this
is not the only factor, but it is certainly one
of the important factors in deciding
whether to grant bail.In the present case
the respondent has already spend 66 days
in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his
counter-affidavit), and we see no reason
why he should be denied bail.A doctor
incarcerated for a long period may end up
like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken's novel
A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his
profession and even his name in the
Bastille."

8. The law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court as stated above is a corner
stone relating to fundamental right of
liberty vis-a-vis prevention of crime.

9.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances and without expressing any
view on the merit of the case, let the
accused applicant be released on bail in
Case Crime No. 130/2012, Under Section-
307/332/353/354/342/323/504/506/427 IPC
& 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.-
Payagpur,
District-
Bahraich
on
his
furnishing a personal bond and two local
and reliable sureties each in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the Court/Magistrate
concerned.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. - 9245 of 2012

Kunwar Pal Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai [A.C.]

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sudhir Mehrotra
A.G.A.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Habeas
Corpus
Petition-Arrest
of
petitionerdetention in lock up for 14 days-without
following the provisions of rule 246 and
251
of
U.P.Z.A.
&
L.R.Act-prior
to
detention
no
information
given-give
undertaking for deposit of loan amount
and refusal by petitioner under Rule 246the action of Tehsildar and collection
Amin issuing warrant of arrest-frivolous
and
unsupportable
by
law-as
the
petitioner already released-but wrongful