Sarita v. State of U.P.)

Applicant :- Ram Bachan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko,. Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Prakash Singh,Bipul Kumar Singh,Rahul Srivastava,Subham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajeet Pratap Singh,Ali Hasan,Mohd. Suhail Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ran Vijay singh, learned A.G.A. for the State but none has appeared on behalf of informant / complainant nor any request for adjournment has been made.

2. Learned counsel has stated that on the earlier occasion learned counsel for the applicant was not present.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 29.6.2022 in Case Crime No. 187 of 2022 u/s 302/34 IPC, P.S. Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the allegation has been levelled against the present applicant and his wife Sarita. As per prosecution story the deceased was step-brother of the present applicant. He has further submitted that the present applicant had nothing to do with the family affairs of his step-brother as he has been living with his family.

5. It has been submitted that the co-accused Sarita, wife of the present applicant, has been granted bail by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12762 of 2022 (Sarita vs. State of U.P.).

6. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure no. 10 which is a medical examination report of the present applicant which shows that the present applicant received six injuries and injury no. 1 is lacerated wound, injury no. 2 is abrasion, injury no. 3 is stitched wound, injury no. 4 is incised wound, injury no. 5 is bluish contusion and injury no. 6 is C-O-P on left side chest. As per opinion of the doctor the duration of the injury is 1-3 days. The aforesaid injury report is dated 30.6.2022, however, the applicant received injuries on 28.6.2022. Learned counsel has stated that the deceased had attacked upon the applicant and so as to defend himself the present applicant hold the deceased wherein he himself received six injuries, whereas the deceased received two injuries, both are stab wounds. Learned counsel has further drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of P.W.-2, Jhingur, who is the eye witness and father of both the applicant and the deceased, has stated that as a matter of fact the main culprit is Komla devi, third wife of Jhingur.

7. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Honb'le Court in Bail No. 10356 of 2019 (Shubham @ Raja Babu vs. State of U.P.). The relevant portion of the judgment is being quoted here under : ".... He has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 wherein the Apex Court in para 12 of the report has summed up the affect of non -explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at the time of occurrence. "12. it seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the couse of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences : (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version ; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore, their evidence is unreliable ; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one."

8. Learned counsel has stated that the aforesaid dictum of Apex Court is being followed by this Court and Apex Court consistently, therefore, the prosecution will have to assign reason and explanation as to how the applicant / accused has received serious injuries. The present applicant / accused is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. In this case trial is going on.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

10. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

11. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that medical examination report of the present applicant shows that the present applicant received six injuries, as per opinion of the doctor the duration of the injury is 1-3 days, the applicant received injuries on 28.6.2022, the deceased had attacked upon the applicant and so as to defend himself the present applicant hold the deceased wherein he himself received two injuries inasmuch as the deceased received two injuries, both are stab wounds, the P.W.-2, Jhingur, who is the eye witness and father of both the applicant and the deceased, has stated that as a matter of fact the main culprit is Komla devi, third wife of Jhingur, present applicant / accused is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever, in this case trial is going on and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

12. Bail application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant Ram Bachan, involved in 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.may be issued and if 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned. . Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Om (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Ram Bachan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko,. Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Prakash Singh,Bipul Kumar Singh,Rahul Srivastava,Subham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajeet Pratap Singh,Ali Hasan,Mohd. Suhail Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ran Vijay singh, learned A.G.A. for the State but none has appeared on behalf of informant / complainant nor any request for adjournment has been made.

2. Learned counsel has stated that on the earlier occasion learned counsel for the applicant was not present.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 29.6.2022 in Case Crime No. 187 of 2022 u/s 302/34 IPC, P.S. Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the allegation has been levelled against the present applicant and his wife Sarita. As per prosecution story the deceased was step-brother of the present applicant. He has further submitted that the present applicant had nothing to do with the family affairs of his step-brother as he has been living with his family.

5. It has been submitted that the co-accused Sarita, wife of the present applicant, has been granted bail by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12762 of 2022 (Sarita vs. State of U.P.).

6. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure no. 10 which is a medical examination report of the present applicant which shows that the present applicant received six injuries and injury no. 1 is lacerated wound, injury no. 2 is abrasion, injury no. 3 is stitched wound, injury no. 4 is incised wound, injury no. 5 is bluish contusion and injury no. 6 is C-O-P on left side chest. As per opinion of the doctor the duration of the injury is 1-3 days. The aforesaid injury report is dated 30.6.2022, however, the applicant received injuries on 28.6.2022. Learned counsel has stated that the deceased had attacked upon the applicant and so as to defend himself the present applicant hold the deceased wherein he himself received six injuries, whereas the deceased received two injuries, both are stab wounds. Learned counsel has further drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of P.W.-2, Jhingur, who is the eye witness and father of both the applicant and the deceased, has stated that as a matter of fact the main culprit is Komla devi, third wife of Jhingur.

7. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Honb'le Court in Bail No. 10356 of 2019 (Shubham @ Raja Babu vs. State of U.P.). The relevant portion of the judgment is being quoted here under : ".... He has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 wherein the Apex Court in para 12 of the report has summed up the affect of non -explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at the time of occurrence. "12. it seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the couse of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences : (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version ; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore, their evidence is unreliable ; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one."

8. Learned counsel has stated that the aforesaid dictum of Apex Court is being followed by this Court and Apex Court consistently, therefore, the prosecution will have to assign reason and explanation as to how the applicant / accused has received serious injuries. The present applicant / accused is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. In this case trial is going on.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

10. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

11. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that medical examination report of the present applicant shows that the present applicant received six injuries, as per opinion of the doctor the duration of the injury is 1-3 days, the applicant received injuries on 28.6.2022, the deceased had attacked upon the applicant and so as to defend himself the present applicant hold the deceased wherein he himself received two injuries inasmuch as the deceased received two injuries, both are stab wounds, the P.W.-2, Jhingur, who is the eye witness and father of both the applicant and the deceased, has stated that as a matter of fact the main culprit is Komla devi, third wife of Jhingur, present applicant / accused is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever, in this case trial is going on and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

12. Bail application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant Ram Bachan, involved in 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.may be issued and if 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned. . Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Om (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench