Allahabad High Court
Dileep vs State Of U.P. on 19 July, 2021
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 16
Case :- BAIL No. - 4607 of 2021
Applicant :- Dileep
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atul Verma,Vinod Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard Sri R.P.Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Atul Verma, learned Counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in as Case Crime No. 02 of 2021, under Sections 323/504/506/308/326 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Uttraula, District Balrampur.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations in the FIR in issue relates to the Section(s) 323/504/506/308 as also 326 IPC. In the FIR it has been stated that the applicant alongwith his sons namely Brajesh and Daboo assaulted Suraj Pandey with brick and rod. He further stated that on account of the same Suraj Pandey sustained injuries and on account of which injured has lost his vision of left eye permanently. It is further submitted that no specific role has been assigned in the FIR against the applicant. It is further submitted that in this case Section 326 IPC is not attracted. On this aspect he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2019) 3 SCC(Cri) 458: C.R. Kariyappa Versus State of Karnataka and (2000) 7 SCC 249: State of U.P. Versus Indrajeet alias Sukhatha. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that if at all Section 325 IPC is attracted then in such a situation the offence would be triable by Magistrate and the punishment, if any, would be of sentence upto 7 years.
It is further submitted that applicant without accepting any allegation made in the FIR, is ready to compensate the injured and he undertakes to compensate with an amount to the tune of Rs. 35,000/-.
In regard to aforesaid, it would be appropriate to clarify here itself that aforesaid argument related to compensation neither can persuade this Court to accede the prayer of bail nor this can be a ground for release an accused on bail.
Learned Counsel for the complainant Sri Atul Verma, opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that as per allegation made in the FIR, Section 326 IPC is made out and punishment under Section 326 IPC is upto life imprisonment. However, he could not dispute that the allegations made in the FIR are general in nature and specific role has not been assigned to the applicant. He also could not dispute the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred hereinabove.
Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for grant of bail in the similar terms as argued by Sri Atul Verma, learned Counsel for the complainant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also the allegations made in the FIR, this Court finds that no specific role has been assigned against the applicant and further, prima-facie it appears that the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred hereinabove applies in the present case and as such, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicant Dileep be released on bail in aforesaid case crime 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 if 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.
(v) In addition to above, as the learned Counsel for the applicant on its own violation has given the undertaking on behalf of the applicant to provide an amount, as aforesaid, towards compensation to the injured, the applicant shall deposit the amount aforesaid before the court concerned, which shall be paid after due verification to the injured.
7. 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.
8. The application stands disposed of.
9. 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.
10. 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 :- 19.7.2021/Jyoti/-
