High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41970 of 2022 Applicant :- Shashi Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as Mr. S. K. Pandey, learned counsel who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of informant is taken on record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 156 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307, 302 IPC, registered at Police Station Harraiya, District Basti. 3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have occurred on 22.05.2022 when the applicant's family is said to have entered into an altercation with the family members of informant. It is stated that family member of applicant inflicted grievous injuries upon family members of informant due to which they suffered grievous injury. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her. It is submitted that even from a reading of the FIR, only a general allegation has been levelled against the applicant of being present at the site of altercation. It is submitted that neither in the FIR nor in the statement of informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has any role or weapon been assigned to the applicant in the aforesaid incident whereas specific allegations have been made against co-accused. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with the submission that initial altercation had occurred between the daughter of informant and the present applicant who was instrumental in calling upon the co-accused who upon the cry of help by the applicant reached the site of altercation and inflicted grievous injuries upon family members of the informant. It has further been submitted that the applicant has been specifically named not only in the FIR but also in the statement of informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as having participated in the altercation and having inflicted grievous injuries leading to death of Mayank Dhar Dwivedi. It is submitted that the other family members of informant's family are also under hospitalization. 6. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears from a reading of the FIR and the statement of informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that a general role of being present at the site of altercation has been assigned to the applicant, whereas specific role of carrying weapons and inflicted injuries have been assigned to co-accused of applicant. From the aforesaid at this stage, there does not appear to be any direct evidence linking the applicant of having inflicted grievous injuries upon the family members of informant leading to death of one. Applicant is languishing jail since 26.05.2022 and although charge-sheet has been filed but trail has not yet commenced. 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." 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, Shashi Mishra, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against her 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 her 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 her, 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.9.2022 Subodh/- Digitally signed by SUBODH KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.09.28 15:16:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad