Allahabad High Court
Vindeshwari Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- BAIL No. - 3036 of 2021
Applicant :- Vindeshwari Prasad
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Singh,Anshul Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
Called on.
Heard learned counsel Sri Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate for the accused-applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri S.P. Tiwari, Advocate, for the State who has received the instructions and perused the material available on record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused-applicant-Vindeshwari Prasad who is involved in Case Crime No. 486 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 308 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda.
The occasion of present bail application has arisen on rejection of the bail plea of the accused-applicant by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Naveen, Gonda vide order dated 11.02.2021.
Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State to protest the bail plea on the basis of instructions and the copy of the case diary available with him.
Reading over the First Information Report, learned counsel submitted that the present accused-applicant alongwith other co-accused persons are coparceners and neighbours of opposite parties, the alleged victim and they have had old enmity between them. Owing to the previous enmity, it is alleged that on 27.11.2020, the present accused-applicant alongwith other accused-persons, armed with lethal weapons attacked on opposite parties and started beating badly. One of the co-accused Radhesh Dubey, firstly, fired upon the mother of the complainant but when the fire was missed, he inflicted blow of Butt of gun on the head of the mother who got seriously injured.
Learned counsel submitted that the incident of marpeet occurred suddenly due to previous enmity between the parties without any pre-planned. Moreover, the present accused-applicant, an old person of 71 years, has not specifically assigned to armed with any lethal weapon or role of causing injury to the victim. However, co-accused Radhesh Dubey, who is specifically assigned the role, has been granted bail by the lower court.
learned counsel submitted that, admittedly, the parties to the incident are neighbours and coparceners. They are permanent residents and common men of the village and not in a position to flee away from the judicial process of the Court. Moreover, the accused-applicant has no criminal antecedent, therefore he deserves to be granted bail so as to defend himself in the course of trial efficaciously and properly.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, on the basis of material available with him and instructions received to him from the State. However, he has not denied that the parties to the incident are neighbours and coparceners as well as the present accused-applicant having no criminal antecedent.
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 Others 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 rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation, complicity of the accused-applicant, gravity of the offence and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the period for which he is in jail, I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the accused-applicant. The accused-applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let applicant-Vindeshwari Prasad be released on bail in Case Crime No. 486 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 308 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda, on his furnishing a personal bond worth Rs. 100,000/- (One lac) 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 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 :- 15.3.2021
kkv/
