High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:207808 Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32578 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Shukla And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar,Hemant Kumar Singh,Rishabh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vipul Kumar Mishra,Vivek Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per allegations in the first information report, it is alleged that nominated accused persons, who are ten in number including applicants have assaulted the injured, as a result of same informant-Umesh Mishra and Aruna Devi have suffered injuries. 3-A. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per medical report which is at page-24 of the paper-book, injuries sustained by injured Aruna Devi are contusion and abrasion, which are simple in nature. So far as injuries of informant-Umesh Mishra is concerned injuries are bone deep forehead, injuries no. 2 and 4 are simple in nature and injury no. 3 are kept in observation. As per medical report injuries are caused by hard and blunt object. As per radiology report, which is at page-26 of the paper-book, there is a fracture on the left side of the frontal bone. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no opinion of the doctor that the injuries sustained are dangerous to life. It is further submitted that criminal history of the applicants have been explained in paragraph no. 17 of the affidavit. Applicants are languishing in jail since 22.06.2023 and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. 4. Sri Vipul Kumar Mishra, advocate has appeared in person on behalf of the informant and submitted that injuries were grievous in nature and caused by hard and blunt object, however, he does not dispute the fact that the other injuries sustained are simple in nature. On a pointed query being made to learned counsel for the informant, as to whether, statement of the doctor has been recorded, no statement of the doctor has been annexed along with the counter affidavit. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case. 5-A. Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:- "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked." 6. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 7. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent. 8. 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 applicant. 9. No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State 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. 10. 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. 11. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State. 11-A. In the present case, it is to be seen that on account of the dispute between the parties injuries have been caused to the injured Umesh Mishra and Aruna Devi, by hard and blunt object. It is further to be seen that no dangerous weapon has been used although injured suffered fracture on the head, however, there is no statement of the doctor that the injuries are life threatening. The dispute arisen in the spur of moment. 12. 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 applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant-Rajesh Kumar Shukla and Satish Kumar Shukla involved in Case Crime No. 713 of 2021, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Soraon, 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 himself 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 he is 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 them 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 residential address, the applicants shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. vii. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that the trial court shall make endeavor to conclude the trial court proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of filing of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. 14. 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 :- 31.10.2023 S.Prakash Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad