Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Inve
Case Details
Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55523 of 2021 Applicant :- Vivek Chaubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Misra,Pulak Ganguly,Sushil Kumar Mishra,Vikash Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Yadav,Sandeep Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for complainant and perusal the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 193 of 2021, under Section 307 IPC, registered at Police Station Kaptanganj, District Kushinagar. 3. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have occurred on 07.06.2021 at about 10.00 P.M. when the applicant is said to have attacked the son of complainant by local fire arm when he was returning to his house. It is stated that the injured suffered firearm injuries due to the aforesaid attack. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that there is serious contradiction in the timing of the incident as indicated in the FIR viz-a-viz the statement of injured made before the doctor in which he has stated that he was having abdominal pain since 08.00 P.M. Learned counsel further submits that even from the injury report, it is apparent that the nature of injury although suffered in the abdomen is not grievous in nature and therefore would not attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 08.06.2021 and as yet trial is only in a preliminary stage. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for complainant has opposed the bail application with the submission that the contradiction in file as indicated is not much material and the injury report clearly corroborates the charges levelled in the FIR. It is submitted that the applicant has a criminal history as well. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that the injury although suffered in the abdominal area is not grievous in nature as indicated in the injury report. The criminal history of applicant has already been explained in paragraph 15 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 08.06.2021 and apparently the trial is only at a preliminary stage. 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, Vivek Chaubey, 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 sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient 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 :- 1.9.2022 Subodh/- Digitally signed by SUBODH KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.09.01 18:10:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad