High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46392 of 2022 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Purushottam Dixit,Jitendra Kumar,Keshav Hari Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Mishra Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Legal Reasoning
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 Anil Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his 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 he 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 his 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 him, 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 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. Order Date :- 16.11.2022 Prabhat Digitally signed by PRABHAT KUMAR Date: 2022.11.16 17:18:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 482 of 2020 under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Friends Colony, District Etawah. 3. As per contents of FIR filed against unknown persons, the incident is said to have taken place on 30th September, 2020 at about 4.35 A.M. when the informant's son went for a morning jog but subsequently his body was found in the nearby bushes. Applicant has been apprehended on the basis of an affidavit given later on by the informant casting suspicion upon him of having administered a poisonous drink. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that in the F.I.R., it has been indicated that there were various injuries upon the body whereas the post mortem report does not indicate any injury on the body of deceased and as such does not corroborate the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. It is submitted that in the statements of informant and the sister of deceased in October, 2020 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the applicant has not been named. Post mortem report was unable to deduce the cause of death but as per viscera report, death has occasioned due to intake of Chlorpyrifos insecticide poison. It is submitted that after more than one and half years, the informant gave an affidavit dated 23rd April, 2022 casting suspicion upon the applicant on the basis of alleged information derived from unnamed persons that the deceased used to go for a morning run along with applicant who administered a poisonous drink to the deceased. It is submitted that the affidavit itself does not indicate any eye witness account and merely cast a suspicion upon the applicant who has been taken into custody on that basis. 5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that although earlier, no information could be derived from the investigation but subsequently the informant making her own efforts came to know about the complicity of applicant in the charges levelled in the F.I.R. 6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that at the time of lodging of F.I.R. and of statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no one particularly the applicant has been named and it was only in the affidavit filed by the informant more than one and half years from the date of incident that suspicion has been cast upon the applicant. Earlier a final report was also submitted by the police but upon a protest application having been made, further investigation was directed, which is still continuing. At this stage, there does not appear to be any direct or even circumstantial evidence available against the applicant. 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