Allahabad High Court
Harikesh vs State Of U.P. on 8 April, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7140 of 2022
Applicant :- Harikesh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Veer Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Prakash Veer Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant - Harikesh under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 113 of 2020, for offence punishable under Sections 188, 270, 304, 316, 420, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 52 Pandemic Management Act, 2005 and Section 15 Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, registered at Police Station- Mahandawal, District - Sant Kabir Nagar, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar vide order dated 17.12.2021.
Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 15.5.2020 has been lodged by the Local Health Department against the applicant and four other named persons stating that on 12.5.2020 at 7:30 p.m., one woman Sunita Devi aged about 25 years was admitted in CHC Community Health Centre Mehandawal for delivery, but the doctors did not treat the patient. The other co-accused Nutan, Maya and Ashabahu took the Sunita Devi to private Aasma Hospital where the patient treated till the night. At night 2:00 a.m. when child was not reacted and the staff of the hospital was not present, then they were left with no option but to leave the hospital. In the morning, Ashabahu and Nutan admitted the patient to Maa Sharda Nursing Home wherein a death child was borne after operation.
After lodging of the first information report, inquest of the newly borne child has been conducted on 13.5.2020 at 14:45 hours and postmortem was also conducted on 13.5.2020 at 5:15 p.m. As per the statement of the doctor, Amit Singh child has been died before the operation. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other named co-accused persons on 25.2.2021. The applicant was arrested on 4.12.2021.
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 The applicant is the husband of other co-accused Sandhya who is manager of the Maa Sharda Nursing Home, Mehandawal. It is admitted case that child has died before the operation. It is further submitted that no specific role and involvement have been levelled against the applicant. The applicant did not treat Sunita devi who was operated by the doctors. It is further submitted that other named co-accused persons, namely Sandhya, Shoeb Ahmad and Maya have been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.7.2021, 7.7.2021 and 10.8.2021. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has 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, but he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits 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) The applicant is not a manager of Maa Sharda Nursing Home, Mahandawal.
(b) No specific role and involvement have been attributed to the present applicant.
(c) The co-accused persons Sandhya, Shoeb Ahmad and Maya have been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.7.2021, 7.7.2021 and 10.8.2021
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 - Harikesh 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/endeavor 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 along-with 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
Arif
