Vimal Singh vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 818 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40651 of 2021
 
Applicant :- Vimal Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Narayan Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Learned counsel for the first informant has filed counter affidavit today, which is taken on record.

Heard Shri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Chandra Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Vimal Singh under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 171 of 2020 for offence punishable under Sections 304, 323, 325, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Dhata, District Fatehpur, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Fatehpur vide order dated 8.4.2021.

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 4.12.2020 has been lodged by the son of the deceased against the applicant and three other named persons under Sections 323, 308, 504, 506, IPC stating that on 4.12.2020 at 10.05 a.m. applicant and other co-accused persons entered into his house and committed marpeet with his father. They attacked with lathi on the head of his father due to which he fell down and became unconscious. He sustained grievous injury. On hearing the noise, Vineet and Shalini reached on the spot and they also sustained injury. Some villagers also reached on the spot and the applicant and other named persons threatening them with dire consequences, fled away from the spot.

After lodging the first information report, medical examination of Vineet and Shalini was conducted on 4.12.2020 at 1.50 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. respectively. Injured Kamlesh Prasad was referred to S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj from where he referred to Command Hospital, Lucknow. On 28.1.2021 Kamlesh has died during the treatment after one month twenty four days of the incident. Inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 28.1.2021 at 13.30 hours. Postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 28.1.2021 at 4.50 p.m. As per postmortem report, old and healed scar mark was present on the top of head. Multiple abrasion was present on both ankle and foot. After recording the statements of the first informant, injured and independent witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted against Vimal Singh and Kallu on 28.2.2021 and other charge sheet has been filed against two named persons after this charge sheet. The applicant was arrested on 18.2.2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that in the incident father of the applicant has received injury. Medical examination of the father of the applicant was conducted on 5.12.2020 by Head Constable Dhirendra Singh at 11.15 a.m. in which contusion measuring 11 x 6 c.m. on right side of back was found on the person of injured Kallu Singh. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not explained injury of the father of the present applicant. It is further submitted that there is material contradiction with regard to place of incident between the allegation of first information report, statement of injured persons as well as independent witnesses. It is further submitted that the injured witnesses have assigned general role to all the named co-accused persons, but on questioning by the I.O., it came to light that the present applicant gave lathi blow on the person of the deceased. Main role of assaulting father of the deceased by lathi has been assigned to the present applicant. It is further submitted that the other co-accused Kallu Singh, Tara Devi and Renu Singh have been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 16.7.2021 & 19.8.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 20002 of 2021 & 31295 of 2021 respectively.

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they could not point out any material to the contrary. They further submit that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) Co-accused Kallu Singh has received contusion measuring 11 cm. x 6 cm. on his back;

(b) General role of committing marpeet by lathi danda has been assigned to all the co-accused persons;

(c) There is material contradiction with regard to place of incident between the allegation of FIR and statements of the witnesses. It would not be appropriate to discuss the same at this stage;

(d) Other co-accused Kallu Singh, Tara Devi and Renu Singh have been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 16.7.2021 & 19.8.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 20002 of 2021 & 31295 of 2021 respectively.

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

Let applicant, Vimal Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) 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 the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such 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 :- 8.4.2022/T. Sinha