High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51749 of 2022 Applicant :- Kuldeep Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramanuj Tiwari,Ajay Giri,Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepesh Kumar Ojha,Saurabh Yadav Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. This is second bail application. First bail application has been rejected by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.. The second bail application has been has been released by the Court concerned and directed to be listed before appropriate Bench. Thereafter, the matter has been placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice and after nomination matter has been placed before appropriate Bench.
Legal Reasoning
and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail. Let the applicant- Kuldeep Sharma involved in Case Crime No. 326 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 323, 427, 302 IPC, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut 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:- (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. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order. Order Date :- 22.12.2022 Krishna* Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepanshu Kushwaha, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Saurabh Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant and Smt. Priyanka Sharma, learned brief holder for the State as well as perused the record. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the case of the applicant is at par with the case of the co- accused, namely, Kuldeep who has been granted bail vide order dated 30.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48173 of 2022. Co-accused Kuldeep has been granted bail and he has also filed second bail applicant and his first bail application has also been rejected. For ready reference, bail order of co-accused Kuldeep, is reproduced herein under:- "Heard Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun and Mr. Ramanuj Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 326 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 323, 427, 302 IPC, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged against 19 named persons and 30 unknown. There is general allegation against all the accused persons including the applicant. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have occurred on 10th June, 2021 when about 50 persons are said to have entered the house of informant and have attacked them although a meeting had been called for purposes of resolution of electoral dispute. It has been alleged that the applicant along with other co-accused was armed with knife and sword and caused injuries upon the informant and his family members. The applicant is in jail since 30.6.2021. It is further contended that similarly placed co-accused Qamil, Pintu @ Kuldeep,Sanawwar, Binnu @ Vinod, Pramod, Arjun and Gaffar have already been granted bail by another bench this court vide orders dated 12.9.2022, 20.9.2022, 26.9.2022, 6.9.2022, 4.11.2022 and 30.9.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 19261 of 2022, 22056 of 2022, 22315 of 2022, 9110 of 2022, 9092 of 2022, 47314 of 2022 and 22206 of 2022 therefore the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. I have perused the bail order of the co-accused and find that the role assigned to the present applicant is almost similar to that of co-accused person, who has already been granted bail by this Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. oppose the application for bail but could not dispute with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. Let the applicant Kuldeep who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified." The applicant claims parity. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.06.2021 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Learned counsel for the complainant and Smt. Priyanka Sharma, learned brief holder for the State have opposed the prayer for bail. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by them. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, it is case of parity with co-accused Kuldeep and nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction