High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:183602 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38193 of 2023 Applicant :- Ramroop Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramdhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anjali Jaiswal,Dhirendra Kumar Verma Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Ramdhan the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. 2. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Ramroop seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 309 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 304 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Etah, during the pendency of trial. 3. Perused the record. 4. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 29.06.2023, an N.C.R. report dated 29.6.20233 was lodged under Sections 323, 504 IPC. The injured Rajesh Das Shastri succumbed to the injuries sustained by him on 11.7.2023. Thereafter, the post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased found following ante mortem injuries:- 1. Both the lungs are archeral to choff wall will multiple pockets filled with pus is seen in right lung. 2. On cut secha of heart clotted blood is seen in both verticals. 3. About 1000 ml of free fluid is present in peripheral cavity. 5. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of the death of deceased was cardiac respiratory arrest due to septicaemia. However, viscera of the deceased was also preserved. 6. After aforesaid exercise had been undertaken, an F.I.R. dated 12.7.2023 came to be lodged by first informant Jitendra Kumar and was registered as Case Crime No. 309 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 304 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Etah. Subsequently, the date of occurrence mentioned in the F.I.R. is 28.6.2023. 7. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, inasmuch as charge sheet has been submitted against all the named accused on 29.8.2023, yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. The occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred on account of grave and sudden provocation. As such, the same is covered under the IVth exception to Section 300 IPC. As per the post mortem report of the deceased, it cannot be said that there was any calculated mens rea with the applicant to commit the crime in question nor the crime in question is the out come of a pre planned act of the applicant. It is then submitted that as per the medical report, the ocular version of the occurrence does not stand proved, inasmuch as the deceased has not sustained any external or internal ante mortem injury on his person, even though occurrence occurred at 9 p.m. on 12.7.2023. As such, the offence complained of shall not travel beyond 304 Part II IPC. 8. Even otherwise applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 17.7.2023. As such, he has undergone a little more than two months of incarceration. Police report in terms of 173 (2) Cr. P. C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant stands crystallized. Upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged against applicant necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the course of trial. He, therefore, submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. 9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application for bail. Learned A.G.A. contends that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. 10. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused-applicant, accusation made and coupled with the fact that ocular version of the occurrence does not stand corroborated with the medical evidence on record, in short the medical evidence does not support the prosecution story as mentioned in the F.I.R., in the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased, the deceased had died on account of cardiac respiratory arrest due to septicaemia, no ante mortem external or internal injury was found on the body of the deceased, prima facie, therefore, there does not appear to be any mens rea with the applicant to commit the crime in question nor the crime in question is out come of pre planned act of applicant, the occurrence appears to be the outcome of grave and sudden provocation, therefore, covered under the IVth exception to Section 300 IPC, as such offence complained of is likely to travel beyond Section 300 Part II IPC, clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, police report in terms of 173 (2) Cr. P. C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the course of trial, the judgement of the Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra Gangwar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 Livelaw (S.C.) 373 (para 5), therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant Ramroop involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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 date 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 I.P.C.. (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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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. (v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant. 12. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. Order Date :- 21.9.2023 HSM Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad