Allahabad High Court
Chhotey Lal vs State Of U.P. on 18 May, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- BAIL No. - 4845 of 2021
Applicant :- Chhotey Lal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
(At Residence)
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
The case is called out.
Learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate appears through video conferencing in virtual hearing and learned A.G.A. for the State, Ms. Parul Kant, Advocate also appears through video conferencing in virtual hearing.
The present bail application is filed on behalf of the accused-applicant- Chhotey Lal who is involved in Case Crime No.143/2019 under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 435 I.P.C., registered at Police Station - Aaspur Devsara, District- Pratapgarh.
The occasion of present bail application has arisen on rejection of bail plea of applicant by learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh vide order dated 8.9.2020.
Learned A.G.A. is present to protest the bail-application to whom the instructions alongwith materials are received.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant submitted that prosecution case as emerged from the F.I.R. lodged by the brother of the deceased-Lal Chand, that on the date of incident owing to the dispute relating to the landed property, the present accused-applicant alongwith six other co-accused gathered and assailed with lathi, danda and knife, they attacked over the complainant and badly beaten from arms in their hands. Consequent thereupon Lal Chand succumbed of injuries at once on the spot whereas others got serious injuries in the incident.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that all the seven persons made accused in the F.I.R are assigned role to have arms and to make blows upon the deceased and others alongwith him. No specific role of blows of any lethal weapon is assigned to the present accused-applicant upon the body of the deceased-Lal Chand. He further submitted that the post mortem report made Annexure to the affidavit of bail application also reveals that the anti-mortem injuries are not having incised wound but lacerated as well abrasion only. He further submitted that in absence of any specific role and assignment of arm in the hand of the present accused-applicant, the causing of death of Lal Chand cannot be attributed to the present accused-applicant at this stage.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the co-accused, Rajendra Prasad having similar role has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 11.2.2021 which is made Annexure No.8 to the bail application.
Lastly, learned counsel for the bail applicant submitted that the present accused applicant has no criminal antecedent, therefore, his presence and alleged role in the commission of offence is falsely implicated and cannot be believed on the perusal of the F.I.R.
Learned A.G.A. Ms. Parul Kant, Advocate opposing the bail application submitted that the accused-applicant alongwith other accused persons admittedly have enmity with regard to dispute as to the landed property between the parties to the incident. Moreover, the F.I.R cannot be treated as encyclopedia of the incident, it is sufficient to state the information that the assailants were armed with lathi, danda and knife. She further submitted that post-mortem report reveals that the lacerated wound is found on the person of the dead body at the vital part like chest, therefore, the death as reported in the F.I.R in the course of incident by beating in which all the seven accused were involved, no one can be separated for the purpose of assigning responsibility of the bail, as such the present bail applicant is not in a position to playing innocence for is laible.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the lacerated wound can also be made by the axe or lathi whatever may be and is cannot be ruled out that the injuries as reported in the post-mortem report was caused by the accused persons.
However, learned A.G.A. has no rebuttal of the fact that in the statement of the witnesses elaborating the facts of the F.I.R no lethal weapon is assigned in the hands of the present accused-applicant. Further she has also not rebutted the fact of want of criminal antecedent on the part of the accused-applicant. It is also admitted that the present accused applicant is native resident of the same village and is a common person as such there is no apprehension of adversely influencing the witnesses or tempering with the evidences. This is also a fact undisputed that the investigation has been completed and culminated into the submission of charge-sheet before the court concerned. As such after hearing the rival contentions of the parties to the case, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the bail applicant with regard to the prima facie case of the prosecution not made out against the present accused-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 and role 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 (Chhotey Lal) involved in Case Crime No.143/2019 under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 435 I.P.C., registered at Police Station - Aaspur Devsara, District- Pratapgarh be released on bail on his furnishing 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 applicants 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 :- 18.5.2021
Gaurav/-
