Allahabad High Court
Shatrohan Lal vs State Of U.P. on 9 July, 2021
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 21
Case :- BAIL No. - 1851 of 2021
Applicant :- Shatrohan Lal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Agnihotri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 303 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Haidrabad, District-Lakhimpur Kheri.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that as per the first information report, Surjit son of the complainant was reported missing on 6.9.2020 and his dead body was found on 7.9.2020 hanging from a tree in the field of one Manoj. It is submitted that the complainant had lodged the F.I.R. against the applicant only on the apprehension that the applicant was involved since the applicant's daughter was having an illicit relationship with the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that there is no direct evidence against the applicant. The only evidence against him is merely circumstantial at best. It is also submitted that the first information report is highly belated since the incident is said to have taken place on 6th September, 2020 whereas the FIR was lodged on 20th September, 2020 and such delay does not inspire confidence. It is submitted that the applicant does not have any criminal history and at present the trial is only at the preliminary stage without even charges having been framed due to Covid-19 pandemic. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 20th September, 2020.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that there was cogent evidence against the applicant due to which he has been taken into custody. He has also placed reliance on the statement of Dharmendra with the submission that the same clearly indicates that the applicant was involved.
6. Considering the material on record and submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, it this stage, there does not appear to be any direct evidence linking the applicant with the incident in question and at this stage only circumstantial evidence is there. It is also the matter to be considered that the FIR is highly belated. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the alleged statement of Dharmendra can not be relied upon since he had already submitted an affidavit before the Sessions Judge that he had never made such a statement.
7. 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."
8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Shatrohan Lal, involved in the 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. 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.
Order Date :- 9.7.2021
prabhat
