Allahabad High Court
Pyare Lal vs State Of U.P. on 6 July, 2021
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 14
Case :- BAIL No. - 5154 of 2020
Applicant :- Pyare Lal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. through video conferencing in view of COVID-19 pandemic.
2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in pursuance to the First Information Report registered as Case Crime No. 96 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 302 I.P.C., Police Station - Biswan, District - Sitapur.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that role of firing has been ascribed to co-accused Rammurat and weapon of crime has also been recovered from the possession of another co-accused Chhotkan. It has been next submitted that no recovery has been made from the applicant, despite the fact that complainant in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. has ascribed the role of firing on the deceased to the applicant but the same has not been supported by one Kailash (injured witness), who has clearly stated that the deceased was filed upon by co-accused Rammurat. It has been further submitted that co-accused of the case namely Deepu and Chhotkan have been granted bail by this Court by means of order dated 15.06.2020, passed in Bail nos. 6677 of 2019 and 10154 of 2019, respectively, and the applicant's case also lies on the same footing he is also entitled for bail, on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the applicant has lastly submitted that applicant is in jail since 01.04.2019.
4. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of opposite party has disputed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant with the submission that the contents of FIR clearly indicate a daring act on the part of the accused. It is submitted that ante mortem injuries also indicate injuries on the face of the deceased which is a vital part and since the applicant is shown as having participated in the beating up of the deceased, as such his involvement in the death of deceased can not be ruled out, but he has fairly conceded that co-accused of this case namely Deepu and Chhotkan have been granted bail by this Court.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in mind the fact that no recovery has been made from the applicant and that co-accused of this case namely Deepu and Chhotkan have been already enlarged on bail coupled with the fact that applicant is in jail since 01.04.2019, therefore he has spent more than two years in judicial custody, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
6. It is also noteworthy that 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."
7. Let applicant Pyare Lal be released on bail in Case Crime No. 96 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 302 I.P.C., Police Station - Biswan, District - Sitapur, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to 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.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and proceed against the applicant in accordance with law.
9. This order shall not influence the trial Court for proceeding with the trial.
10. The application stands disposed of.
11. The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by him alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
12. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 6.7.2021
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
