High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:134367 Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19667 of 2023 Applicant :- Dinesh Gupta @ Ram Babu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shesh Mani Misra,Tejasvi Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shashi Kumar Dwivedi Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the informant and the applicants are relatives and are also neighbours. A dispute arose at the spur of the moment where both sides have assaulted each other and as a result of the same, both sides sustained injuries. The dispute has arisen on account of the damage to the wall of the applicant effected by the informant. Initially both sides have lodged N.C.R. However, firstly the NCR was lodged by the informant and thereafter by the applicants. The applicant waited as the informant is his relative and he thought that the matter would be resolved. However, when both the sides approaches the Magistrate and an order of investigation was passed and on the basis of the order of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted. 3A. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of this Court to the injury report of the injured Uma Shankar where it was found that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. Injury nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 are simple in nature. So far as injuries of Rama Shankar are concerned, the same are caused by hard and blunt object. Injury nos.1, 3 and 4 are simple in nature. The X-ray report is annexed as Annexure S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit where the injured Rama Shankar has fracture in thumb of left hand, whereas injured Uma Shankar has fracture in left side frontol bone. There is no opinion of the Doctor that the injuries are such of nature that it could result in homicide. It cannot be said that there was any intention to commit culpable homicide as there is no knowledge that the injuries are fatal in nature. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 27.3.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. 4. Sri Shashi Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant submits that both the sides have entered into articulation and on account of sudden quarrel, both the sides sustained injuries. Both the sides lodged NCR where after the order of Magistrate, investigation has been carried out and charge sheet has been submitted. The injury of Uma Shankar is fracture on the frontal bone. 4A. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the informant as to whether there is any statement of the Doctor that the injuries are fatal in nature and would amount to culpable homicide, learned counsel for the informant could not demonstrate from the record that the injuries are fatal in nature. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case. However, he could not show any statement of the Doctor that the injuries would have resulted in culpable homicide. 5A. Learned AGA has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicants which would disentitle the applicant for Bail. 6. It is not the case of the State that the applicants have not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court. 6A. It is to be seen that the applicants and the informant are relatives and also neighbours and at the spur of the moment both the sides have physically assaulted each other. There is no evidence that the injuries sustained by the informant side are fatal in nature or would have resulted in culpable homicide. It cannot be said that the parties have any intention to commit culpable homicide. 7. The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the Applicants. 8. No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. 9. 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 for the State. 10. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicants are not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicants Dinesh Gupta @ Ram Babu and Mithun Kumar Gupta involved in Case Crime No. 129 of 2022, Case No.1345 of 2022, under Sections 323, 325, 308, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Nawab Ganj, District Prayagraj 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 the following conditions:- i. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. iii. The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. iv. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. v. The applicants 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 or tamper with the evidence. vi. The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. vii. In the event, the applicants changes their residential address, the applicants shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. viii. The informant and the applicants are hereby directed to maintain peace and tranquility in the area and shall not indulge in any articulation or assault on each other. The SHO concerned is also directed to maintain peace and tranquility between the parties. 13. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 6.7.2023 Bhaskar Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad