Ram Pratap @ Chhotu (Fourth Bail) vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 9214 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 32
 

 
Case :- BAIL No. - 2625 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Ram Pratap @ Chhotu (Fourth Bail)
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sanjay Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the complainant.

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 86 of 2013, under sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station-Kamlapur, District- Sitapur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this is fourth bail preferred on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected for want of prosecution by this court vide its order dated 27-08-2015. The second bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this court vide its order dated 12-09-2016 and the third bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution on 14-05-2019.

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25-04-2013 and the trial will take time.

It is further submitted that the material prosecution witnesses have been examined, but, the Investigating Officer and Doctor are yet to be examined in the trial.

It is further submitted that the statement of the applicant under section 313 Cr.P.C. is also to be recorded and due to Covid-2019, no date is fixed in the trial.

It is further submitted that there is no eye witness of the incident.

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. This fact may be seen from the affidavit filed alongwith the third bail application, record of which has come before this court alongwith the present bail application.

In compliance of the order of this court dated 30-06-2021, the status of the trial has been submitted by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Sitapur vide letter dated 12-07-2021, stating therein that due to Covid-2019, the trial is pending.

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the Judgment of this court and the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012)1 SCC, 40, wherein the Apex Court held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant extract of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra(Supra), is quoted hereinunder :-

"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."

It has also been submitted on behalf of the accused-applicant that speedy trial is vested in the applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that in case the accused-applicant is acquitted after some years, his acquittal would be meaningless in view of long period of incarnation. In this regard, we would like to refer to (2001) 4 SCC 355, Akhtari Bi (Smt) Vs. State of M.P.[2JJ.]; (2005) SCC (Cri) 1674, Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh vs. State of Punjab[2 JJ.]; (2002) (4) SCC 578, P.Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka [5 JJ.]; (1978)1 SCC 579, Babu Singh and others vs. State of U.P.[2JJ.]; (2001) 10 SCC 463, Takht Singh and others Vs. State of M.P.[2JJ.]; Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.2356 of 2010, Kushal Singh vs. State of U.P.[2JJ.] and (2012) 3 SCC (Cri)270=(2012)5 SCC 752, Fazal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2JJ.].

In the aforesaid cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that without adverting the facts of the case or reasons for conviction suspended and contended solely on the ground that applicant is already in jail for 3 years to 8 years. In these orders the only reason assigned for granting bail is a period undergone by the accused-applicant. Since the accused-applicant has no previous criminal history, therefore, there is no likelihood for the accused committing the offence while on bail with heavy surety.

On contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for the bail on the ground that as per the version in the F.I.R.and the statements, an offence is made out against the applicant, but, failed to dispute the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra(Supra), where it has been held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial.

After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and examining the material available on record, keeping in view the nature of offence and totality of facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the case and also keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra(Supra), I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

Let the applicant, Ram Pratap @ Chhotu, involved in Case Crime No. 86 of 2013 under sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station-Kamlapur, District- Sitapur be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

(i) The applicant shall, however, co-operate and attend the proceedings at every stage without seeking unnecessary adjournments just to prolong the proceedings.

(ii)The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

(iii) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

(iv) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for. 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 clarified that anything said in this order is 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. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

Order Date :- 2.8.2021

AKS