Allahabad High Court
Arun Kumar @ Ved Prakash vs State Of U.P. on 12 July, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 29
Case :- BAIL No. - 7093 of 2021
Applicant :- Arun Kumar @ Ved Prakash
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohsin Iqbal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
(In chamber)
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
The case is called out through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the bail-applicant Sri Mohsin Iqbal, Advocate and learned brief holder for the State Ms. Anupriya Jaiswal, Advocate are connected through video conferencing.
The present bail application is filed on behalf of the accused-applicant-Arun Kumar @ Ved Prakash, involved in Case Crime No.343 of 2020, under Sections 324, 304, 506 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Itaunja, District Lucknow.
The occasion of present bail application has arisen on rejection of bail plea of applicant by learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Lucknow vide order dated 01.04.2021.
Learned brief holder for the State informs that she has received the instructions alongwith C.D. and material papers from the prosecution. Since the learned counsel for the bail-applicant presses to argue the matter instantly, therefore, learned brief holder is also ready to protest the bail-plea.
Learned counsel for the bail-applicant submitted that on perusal of first information report, the specific role of inflicting a brick from the roof upon the head of the deceased is assigned to the co-accused, Gyanendra Rawat, whereas in family dispute and resultant fallen clash, the present accused-applicant, being a family member of Gyanendra Rawat is also arraigned with the offence.
Learned counsel further submitted that the case of present accused-applicant is distinguishable than that of Gyanendra Rawat to whom the specific role of inflicting brick on the head of deceased is assigned. Learned counsel further drew the attention towards the post mortem report, which shows that the death occurred as a result of anti mortem injuries causing Septicemia.
Learned counsel for the bail-applicant further submitted that the present accused-applicant is a common man, local resident, not in a position to flee away from the process of Court and if released on bail, will abide himself to the condition imposed on him for grant of bail and will ensure his present before the trial court, as and when required for facing the trial efficaciously.
Learned brief holder for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail, but did not dispute the contentions made by learned counsel for the bail-applicant.
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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record, considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking into the complicity of the applicant-accused in the offence, the gravity of offence, severity of punishment without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicant (Arun Kumar @ Ved Prakash), involved in Case Crime No.343 of 2020, under Sections 324, 304, 506 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Itaunja, District Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 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 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 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 :- 12.7.2021
Saurabh
