High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9903 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajaram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
(C) While passing an order on an application for grant of bail, there is no need to record elaborate details to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal. However, a Court cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as allegations made against accused; nature and gravity of accusation; having common object or intention; severity of punishment if allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced by accused; tampering of evidence; character, behaviour, means, position and standing of accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; the frivolity in the case of prosecution; criminal antecedents of accused and a prima facie satisfaction of Court in support of charge against accused. The Court may also take note of participation or part of an unlawful assembly as well as that circumstantial evidence not being a ground to grant bail, if the evidence/ material collected establishes prima facie a complete chain of events. Parity may not be an only ground but remains a relevant factor for consideration of application for bail. (D) Over crowding of jail and gross delay in disposal of cases when undertrials are forced to remain in jail (not due to their fault) may give rise to possible situations that may justify invocation of Article 21 of Constitution, may also be considered along with other factors. (See, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs. Balchand @ Baliay (AIR 1977 SC 2447 : 1978 SCR (1) 535; Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118); State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ishwarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr :2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2022)3 SCC 501; and, Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559) In the present case, from above referred facts and rival submissions, it transpires that deceased was having liquor with his neighbour and there was certain exchange of hot talks between them. At this stage, brother of neighbour i.e. applicant, came and being angry, assaulted deceased, who succumbed to injuries a day after. There is substance in the argument of learned counsel for applicant that it appears that no one has witness the occurrence and eye-witness account appears to be improbable, therefore, taking note of nature of injuries, conviction if any, may not travel beyond under Section 304 part-II I.P.C., therefore, applicant who is in jail since 08.08.2022, has made out a case of bail. Let the applicant- Rajaram be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment or exemption from appearance on the date fixed in trial. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iii) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (iv) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months after release of applicant, if there is no other legal impediment. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. The bail application is allowed. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application. Order Date :- 28.4.2023 P. Pandey Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for applicant, and Sri Markandey Singh, learned Brief Holder for State. Applicant- Rajaram, has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No.402 of 2022 under Sections 323, 304 I.P.C., Police Station- Naini, District - Prayagraj after rejection of his Bail Application vide order dated 13.02.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Prayagraj. Informant is son of deceased who lodged an F.I.R. against present applicant that on 05.08.2022 at about 10.30 p.m. his father was drinking liquor along with his neighbour Nanka Pasi alias Babbu Pasi and under the influence of liquor, there were exchange of hot talks between them. Meanwhile present applicant, elder brother of Nanka Pasi, came there and started beating his father who suffered injuries and later on he was admitted in a hospital, however, he died a day after. According to post-mortem report, cause of death was hemorrhage shock due to ante-mortem injuries which are six in number and there were multiple abraded contusion on back side of scapula and there was abrasion on head also. Learned counsel for applicant submits that there was no eye- witness to the occurrence. The alleged eye-witness account is after thought and all persons came after occurrence was over. Nature of injuries does not indicate that deceased was repeatedly assaulted and cause of death may be due to fall of deceased as he was under influence of liquor. There is no motive assigned to applicant to commit murder of deceased. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is behind the bar since 08.08.2022 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Learned Brief Holder for State submits that there is an eye-witness account who has witnessed that applicant was angry with exchange of hot talks between deceased and his brother and in retaliation he assaulted deceased, due to which he died. LAW ON BAIL - A SUMMARY (A) The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail. (B) Power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is of wide amplitude but not an unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course or in whimsical manner.