Allahabad High Court
Ram Pravesh Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 18 January, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 30
Case :- BAIL No. - 506 of 2021
Applicant :- Ram Pravesh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
The case is called out.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Yadav, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application is filed on behalf of the accused-applicant involved in Case Crime No. 366 of 2020, under Sections 452, 323, 325, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Fatehpur, District- Barabanki.
The occasion of present bail application arisen on rejection of bail plea of applicant by learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Barabanki vide order dated 07.11.2019. A copy of the bail application has already been received in the office of G.A.
Learned counsel for the applicant reading over the F.I.R. submitted that admittedly there was a dispute as to the land of pathway between the parties to the incident. On the date of occurrence a sudden quarrel between them bursted. A general allegation is made in the F.I.R. of beating from iron rods, lathi (stick), fists and kicks by the accused named in the F.I.R. respectively Chandrapal, Sudheer Kumar, Ram Pravesh Yadav and Avanish, the complainant side. It is further alleged in the course of quarrel, complainant's brother Radheyshyam Yadav and cousin sister Mayadevi were seriously injured.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that neither particular role is assigned to the present accused-applicant nor any arm is said to held by him, even apart from the F.I.R. in statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., none of the witnesses have particularly assigned the role of causing specific injury on person of the victim by the applicant-accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is a matter of evidence to be adduced in the trial to establish particular role of causing injury and the accused-applicant need to be released on bail for the purpose of appearing during trial to put evidence in his defence.
Learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that since the allegation in the F.I.R. shows, the accused-applicant in planned and designed way assembled to beat the complainant side owing to the dispute as to the pathway, therefore, if any injury sustained to the victim all the accused persons are liable for the offence jointly.
After hearing the parties and on perusal of materials on record it is prima facie obvious that there is a pre-existing dispute as to the pathway between the parties to the incidents wherein a quarrel bursted between them resulting into mutual scuffling. The complainant and his cousin got injured. The offence need trial to establish any preplanned unlawful assembly for the purpose of making them injured.
Keeping into mind the valuable right of personal liberty and the fundamental principle not to disbelieve a person to be innocent unless held guilty and if he is not arraigned with the charge of an offence for which the law has put on him a reverse burden of proving his innocence as, held in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the bail-applicant to enlarge him on bail.
Looking into the role, complicity of the accused-applicant in the offence, the prima facie case without making any comment as to the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicant (Ram Pravesh Yadav) involved in Case Crime No. 366 of 2020, under Sections 452, 323, 325, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Fatehpur, District- Barabanki be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional 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 their 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 misuse 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 applicants 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 :- 18.1.2021
Gaurav/-
