High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31101 of 2022 Applicant :- Prakash Ram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Priya Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Bhushan Singh,Rajnarayn Singh Yadav Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant Siyaru @ Abhishek @ Sheru involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his 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 shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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. " On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant submits that case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of aforementioned co-accused. There is no such distinguishable feature on the basis of which the case of present applicant could be distinguished from that of aforesaid co-accused. As such on the facts and reasons recoreded in the aforesaid order of co- accused, present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is also contended that from the perusal of F.I.R. and the statement of the first informant as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that the deceased committed suicide on account of an immediate act of the applicant. There is nothing on record to show abetment, instigating or complicity on the part of applicant leading to the death of deceased. It is lastly submitted that applicant is in jail since 05.06.2022. As such applicant has undergone about four months of incarceration. In case, the applicant is released on bail he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial. The charge-sheet having been submitted the evidence sought to be relied by the prosecution against the applicant stands crystallized. As such custodial arrest of the applicant is not absolutely necessary during the pendency of trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. Chandra Bhushan Singh, the learned counsel for first informant have opposed the present application for bail. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant but without coupled with the fact that co-accused who is named in the F.I.R. has already been enlarged on bail, the case of applicant being similar to aforesaid co-accused and there being no adverse material establishing abetment, instigation or conspiracy against applicant upto this stage but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed. Let the applicant- Prakash Ram involved in aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence. (ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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 of applicant and send him to prison Order Date :- 1.11.2022 Sachin/- Digitally signed by SACHIN TIWARI Date: 2022.11.05 15:22:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard Mr. Anand Priya Singh, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Chandra Bhushan Singh, the learned counsel for first informant. Perused the record. The present application for bail has been filed by the applicant, Prakash Ram for his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.295 of 2022, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Saray Lakhansi, District- Mau, during pendency of trial. Record shows that dead-body of the deceased namely, Awadhesh was recovered on 01.06.2022. Subsequent to above, inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on the same date. In the opinion of the Panch witness, nature of death of the deceased was homicidal. Thereafter, post-mortem of body of the deceased was conducted on the same day. The Autopsy Surgeon found following anti mortem injuries on the body of deceased:- (i) Contusion abrasion over left side of face just below left eye. (ii) Traumatic swelling 11 cm x 8 cm over left occipital region after cutting subdural cerebrial hemotoma is present. (iii) Traumatic swelling 4 cm x 4 cm over left side of chest just below neck after cutting fracture left 4th rib is present. (iv) Traumatic swelling over right side of chest 3 cm x 3 cm on opening/cutting 2nd rib right side is present. (v) Traumatic swelling over right side chest just below Right neck on cutting fracture of 4th rib is present. In the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was anti-mortem head injury. However, viscera of the deceased was preserved for further investigation and chemical examination. Thereafter a delayed F.I.R. dated 2.06.2022 was lodged by first informant, namely, Doodhnath and same was registered as Case Crime No.0295 of 2022, under Sections 277, 302 I.P.C., P.S.- Saray Lakhansi, District- Mau. In the aforesaid F.I.R., two persons namely, Prakash and Sherue have been nominated as named accused inasmuch as an unknown person has also been arrayed as an accused. Investigation Officer upon completion of investigation of the afore-mentioned case crime submitted the charge-sheet dated 12.07.2022 whereby named accused, Prakash and Siyaru @ Abhishek @ Sheur and not named accused Prakash Ram have been charge-sheeted. At the very outset learned counsel for applicant contends that named co-accused i.e. Siyaru @ Abhishek @ Sheru has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 13.9.2022. For ready reference same is reproduced herein under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 295 of 2022 under Sections 302, 120B, 34 IPC, P.S. Saray Lakhansi, District Mau. 3. As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have occurred on 31st May, 2022 when the applicant along with co-accused are said to have accompanied the deceased whereeafter only his dead body was recovered on the next date. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and except for the last seen, there is no other direct or circumstantial evidence against the applicant. It is submitted that there is no recovery effected from the applicant of any weapon although the post mortem report clearly indicates the fatal injury on the head of deceased. It is submitted that subsequent additional statement of the informant also was given after more than one and half months and is also in the realm of hear say evidence and the applicant has been apprehended only on the basis of alleged exrtra judicial confession. 5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed bail application with the submission that the applicant and co-accused were the last scene persons who had accompanied the deceased. It is submitted that in the additional statement, the informant has clearly divulged information received which clearly ascertains involvement of applicant. 6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, a perusal of F.IR. and statement of material witnesses, indicates the applicant along with co-accused to be last seen with the deceased. At this stage, there does not appear to be any direct or any other circumstantial evidence linking the applicant with the crime alleged. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."