State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand
Case Details
Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25752 of 2022 Applicant :- Ajay Maurya @ Ajay Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh,Anand Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant. Applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.14 of 2022, under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Saidpur, District Ghazipur, during trial. Marriage of the applicant was fixed with the victim/girl. He allegedly caused multiple injuries to the victim as he does not want to marry with her.
Legal Reasoning
relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused" [State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21]. In Manno Lal Jaiswal Vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 89 Supreme Court has observed that, "when the Accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual Accused is not significant and/or relevant." In Ashim Vs. National Investigation Agency, (2022) 1 SCC 695, Supreme Court has observed that, "Once it is obvious that timely trial would not be possible and the Accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail." In Ishwarji Nagaji Mali Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2022 SCC Oline SC 55, Supreme Court has observed that " merely because the prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail, if during the course of investigation the evidence/material has been collected and prima facie, the complete chain of events is established." C. "....It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge." (Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors:( 2001) 4 SCC 280). D. "....It is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment...." (Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118) and also (Ms. Y versus State of Rajasthan and Anr :2022 SCC OnLineSC 458). E. "....There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail. However, the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused." (Manoj Kumar Khokhar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr, (2022)3 SCC501). In the present case, the FIR was lodged by brother of the victim on the basis of information given by her, when she had suffered three injuries on her neck and when she gain some strength she narrated the entire version in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The fact that marriage between the applicant and the victim/injured was fixed remained undisputed. The victim in her statement has specifically alleged the role of applicant that he caused three lacerated wounds on her neck by blade. From perusal of the medical injury report of the victim, it transpires that all the three lacerated wounds were deep measuring from 4cm-5cm to 6cm-8cm.
Arguments
Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR was lodged by the brother of the victim/injured against unknown persons on the basis of information given by the victim herself to the first informant. However, the victim not only changed the version of the alleged occurrence but specifically named the applicant in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. making specific allegation of causing injuries on her neck by the applicant and further that the nature of injuries were not grievous as they were only muscle deep. It is a case of self inflicted injuries. Victim/injured has not named the applicant when she had informed her brother to lodge the FIR. He further submits that nature of occurrence as mentioned by the victim in her statement is not probable version, even the persons, who have dropped the victim at the hospital, were not examined. Therefore, it is a case of false implication and the applicant, who is in jail since 18.1.2022, is entitled to be released on bail. The above submissions are opposed by Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. and Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsels stressed placed heavy reliance on the injury report and its nature and manner that three injurers were caused on the neck of the victim which were deep lacerated wounds upto 6cm-8cm and they vehemently opposed the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that injuries were self inflicted. They also contended that the FIR was lodged by the brother of the victim on the basis of information given by her, when she had suffered three injuries by a blade on her neck, as such not disclosing name in FIR could not be considered to be fatal for prosecution case. LAW ON BAIL A. "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail" (State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand @ Baliay : (1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535). Power to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC, is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner. (see Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh :(2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P.:(2016)15 SCC 422). B. "The considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out." [Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118)]. "There is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia,
Decision
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that these injuries could be self inflicted. The applicant has taken advantage of his relationship being engaged with the victim and not only refused to marry but caused three injuries on her neck i.e. on a vital part. Therefore, considering the nature of the offence and the specific allegation on the applicant by the victim/injured and also considering the nature of the injuries, I do not find any reason to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 28.6.2022 M. Tarik Digitally signed by MOHD TARIK Date: 2022.07.01 11:20:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad