DIPAK MISRA,J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THE present appeal by special leave has been preferred assailing the legal defensibility of the order dated 26.04.2012 passed in Criminal Application No. 28461 of 2011 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and praying for quashment of the same, and further to cancel the grant of bail to the accused-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused ') in respect of offences punishable under Sections 365/506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC '). The facts material for adjudication of this appeal are that an FIR was lodged by the present appellant on 29.05.2011 alleging that while he was going to his in-laws ' place in village Samadia, P.S. Patwai along with Bihari Lal near canal of Milk Road from Patwai which leads to Samdia Khurd, two persons came on a motorcycle and after inquiring about the identity of Bihari Lal told him that they had been asked by Lalla Babu @ Shiv Raj Singh to compel him to accompany them. As there was resistance, they threatened to kill him and eventually made Bihari Lal sit in between them on the Hero Honda motorcycle and fled towards Patwai. The incident was witnessed by Munish and Rajbir. In quite promptitude the appellant went to the Patwai Police Station, District Rampur and lodged the FIR as a consequence of which crime No. 770 of 2011 was registered for offences punishable under Section 364 and 506 of the IPC. On the basis of the FIR the criminal law was set in motion and the accused was arrested and taken into custody. The accused Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu preferred bail Application No. 1268 of 2011 which came to be dealt by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur who taking note of the allegations in the FIR and the stand put forth in oppugnation by the prosecution as well as by the victim observed as follows:- "I have perused the case diary. While confirming his abduction, victim Bihari Lal has stated under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the abductors took him to the accused. Applicant-accused and his accomplices kept him confined in a room for about 8 days and they also used to assault him and threaten for life. As per the victim, he escaped from their captivity after about 8 days of abduction under the pretext of nature 's call/time. Munish and Rajbir reported as eye-witnesses in the First Information Report stated before the Investigating Officer that the abductors had stated at the time of abduction that the applicant-accused Lalla Babu has send them to mend you. " Thereafter, taking note of the fact that the accused is a history- sheeter and involved in number of cases rejected the application for bail. Being unsuccessful to secure bail from the court of Session, the accused preferred a Bail Application No. 28461 of 2011 before the High Court under Section 439 of the Code. The High Court though took note of the statement made under Section 164 CrPC that name of Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu had figured as allegations were made against him to that effect that victim Bihari Lal was taken by the kidnappers to him, yet observed that he only sat there and offended Bihari Lal. The High Court only mentioned the fact that the accused has a criminal history and is involved in number of cases but considering the factum that he has been in custody since 30.09.2011 directed his enlargement on bail on certain conditions, namely, the accused shall report at the police station concerned on the first day of each English Calendar month, shall not commit any offence similar to the offence which he is accused of, and 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.
(3.) QUESTIONING the justifiability of the impugned order Ms. Abha R. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the High Court has absolutely misdirected itself by not appositely considering the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the gravity of the offences and criminal antecedents of the accused and further the affidavit filed by the prosecution bringing number of factors as a consequence of which an illegal order enlarging the appellant on bail has come into existence. The learned counsel submitted that the non- consideration of the material facts vitiates the order of the High Court and annulment of the same is the judicial warrant. Per contra, Mr. Irshad Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the accused contended that the prosecution case is a fabricated, false and malicious one and it has been foisted because of political vendetta. It is urged by him that there is discrepancy between statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court cannot be found fault with. It is his further submission that though the accused has been released on bail, yet he has conducted himself and in the absence of any supervening circumstances it would be undesirable to cancel the order granting bail as the sanctity of liberty should be treated with paramount importance. It is also argued that the High Court was absolutely conscious of the cases pending against accused but because of election disputes and constant animosity of the administration which was stand of the accused they were not dwelled upon in detail and an order admitting the accused to bail was passed on imposing stringent conditions. That apart, it is put forth that in the absence of any failure on his part to respect the conditions his liberty should not be put to any jeopardy at the instance of an interested party who is bent upon to harass him. The centripodal issue that emerges for consideration is whether the order passed by the High Court is legitimately acceptable and legally sustainable within the ambit and sweep of the principles laid down by this Court for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code. ;