In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:128217 Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26710 of 2023 Applicant :- Ramesh @ Labba Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2023 under Sections 326 and 504 I.P.C., P.S.- Jariya, District- Hamirpur (U.P.) during pendency of trial. 3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that in dispute between the husband and wife, who are the accused and informant, respectively, some hot oil was thrown by the accused/husband upon the informant/wife and his one, namely, Abhishek and they sustained injuries. F.I.R. was lodged and chargesheet has been submitted. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. No intentional offence was committed by the present accused-applicant. F.I.R. has been lodged three days after the occurrence and no sufficient explanation for the delay has been given by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the injuries sustained by both the injured persons are simple in nature. It is lastly submitted that the accused applicant is languishing in jail since 16.01.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail. 6. It appears from the perusal of the record that there was a quarrel between the husband/accused and the wife/informant. The minor son of the informant has stated before the Investigating Officer that there was a quarrel between his parents and in the state of intoxication, the accused/his father threw some hot oil and he alongwith his mother sustained injuries. The injury report of the informant and his son reveals that they have not sustained any grievous injury and a small portion of body that is to say 7% and 5% respectively has been found as burnt in the medical examination and the doctor has opined that injuries of the injured persons are simple in nature. 7. In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:- "15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail." 8. In Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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 can be 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. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson." 9. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases as well as in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 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. 10. Let the applicant-Ramesh @ Labba involved in Case Crime No. 11 of 2023, under Sections 326 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Jariya, District- Hamirpur (U.P.) 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. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The applicant 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 12. It is made clear that the submissions and observations made in this order are only for deciding the bail application. Trial Court while deciding the trial will not be influenced with the same. Order Date :- 22.6.2023 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad