High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:209454 Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35392 of 2023 Applicant :- Sarvar Alam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Khalid Mahmood,Nitin Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vimal 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.
Legal Reasoning
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 the allegations made in the F.I.R. the nominated accused persons assaulted the injured. As a result of the same, the injured have suffered injuries. The injury of the injured Jalaluddin is at page no. 31 of the paper book, wherein, the injured has suffered three injuries. One injury is complain of pain, second injury is a lacerated wound which is caused by hard and blunt object and third injury is incised wound which is on the chest which is 0.5 cm deep. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although injury no. 1 was caused by sharp object, however, there was no intention to commit homicide, there was previous enmity between the parties. As a result of the same, the dispute has arisen. Learned counsel submits that the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 3 to 23 of the supplementary affidavit. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the nature of the injuries are such that cannot be said that offence under section 307 I.P.C. is made out in the present case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 30.06.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. 5. Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, submits that the injuries suffered by the applicant is by sharp object and are grievous in nature. 6. On a pointed query being made to learned counsel for the informant as to whether the doctor has made a statement that the injuries are life threatening, learned counsel for the informant could not demonstrate the same. The applicant is having previous criminal history, however, all are of minor offence, the present applicant is having enmity with the informant and the nature of injuries are not such as life threatening. 7. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case. 8. 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." 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Let the applicant Sarvar Alam, involved in Case Crime No. 548 of 2023, under sections 147, 323, 307, 324 I.P.C., Police Station Kasya, District Kushinagar, 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 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 and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. 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. vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. 17. The applicant is hereby directed to not to disturb the peace and punctuality of the informant and his family members and shall not interfere in the peaceful living. The SHO concerned is hereby directed to maintain peace and punctuality between the parties. 18. 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 :- 1.11.2023 K.K. Maurya Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad