High Court

2. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vivekanand Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.296 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 131, 103(1) I.P.C., Police Station- Katra, District- Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant alongwith other co-accused persons armed with lathi, danda and sharp edged weapons are stated to have assaulted the nephew of the informant Dharam Singh on 27.7.2024 at about 04:30 p.m. causing grievous injuries to him. The informant was working at the field at that time and is the eye-witness of the incident. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

6. The FIR is delayed by about four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. As far as FIR is concerned, there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, but subsequently in the statement of two witnesses, namely, Ratan @ Raman Pal and Deepu, the allegations have been escalated to the fact that applicant has been assigned the role of assaulting with an auger (an implement used for digging holes in the ground) and had caused the said grievous injuries to the injured person.

8. The injury report indicates that there are six lacerated wound sustained by the deceased person and four of them were on vital parts.

9. The co-accused persons, namely, Preeti Devi Alias Kirti and Neha, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 19.11.2024 and 7.1.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 41931 of 2024 and 43760 of 2024, respectively, as such, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

10. There is cross-version to the instant case and one person from each side has sustained injuries, as such, it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor. It is admitted by both the parties that a struggle ensued over planting of trees.

11. The order for institution of FIR from the side of applicant has been passed by the A.C.J.M.-III, Court No.15, Shahjahanpur vide order dated 4.10.2024. The FIR has been registered and the said order has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the affidavit filed with bail application.

12. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

13. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.7.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

14. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that even the earlier order indicates that applicant was the main assailant and it was he who had inflicted the said grievous injuries leading to the death of the deceased person, but itis not disputed that there is cross-version to the instant case.

15. It is further argued that cross-version has been created by the applicant just to harass and coerce the informant to enter into compromise, as such, the FIR has been instituted after moving an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. The deceased person has sustained four grievous injuries on the vital organs. CONCLUSION:

16. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

17. 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.

18. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

19. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”.

20. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

21. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that there being cross- version to the instant case and one person from each side has sustained injuries and although it is true that the injured person in the instant case has succumbed to the injuries, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

23. Let the applicant- Mohit involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

24. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

25. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal)

2. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vivekanand Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.296 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 131, 103(1) I.P.C., Police Station- Katra, District- Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant alongwith other co-accused persons armed with lathi, danda and sharp edged weapons are stated to have assaulted the nephew of the informant Dharam Singh on 27.7.2024 at about 04:30 p.m. causing grievous injuries to him. The informant was working at the field at that time and is the eye-witness of the incident. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

6. The FIR is delayed by about four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. As far as FIR is concerned, there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, but subsequently in the statement of two witnesses, namely, Ratan @ Raman Pal and Deepu, the allegations have been escalated to the fact that applicant has been assigned the role of assaulting with an auger (an implement used for digging holes in the ground) and had caused the said grievous injuries to the injured person.

8. The injury report indicates that there are six lacerated wound sustained by the deceased person and four of them were on vital parts.

9. The co-accused persons, namely, Preeti Devi Alias Kirti and Neha, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 19.11.2024 and 7.1.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 41931 of 2024 and 43760 of 2024, respectively, as such, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

10. There is cross-version to the instant case and one person from each side has sustained injuries, as such, it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor. It is admitted by both the parties that a struggle ensued over planting of trees.

11. The order for institution of FIR from the side of applicant has been passed by the A.C.J.M.-III, Court No.15, Shahjahanpur vide order dated 4.10.2024. The FIR has been registered and the said order has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the affidavit filed with bail application.

12. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

13. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.7.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

14. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that even the earlier order indicates that applicant was the main assailant and it was he who had inflicted the said grievous injuries leading to the death of the deceased person, but itis not disputed that there is cross-version to the instant case.

15. It is further argued that cross-version has been created by the applicant just to harass and coerce the informant to enter into compromise, as such, the FIR has been instituted after moving an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. The deceased person has sustained four grievous injuries on the vital organs. CONCLUSION:

16. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

17. 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.

18. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

19. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”.

20. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

21. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that there being cross- version to the instant case and one person from each side has sustained injuries and although it is true that the injured person in the instant case has succumbed to the injuries, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

23. Let the applicant- Mohit involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

24. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

25. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal)