Allahabad High Court
Ankur Tomar vs State Of U.P. on 22 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30510 of 2022
Applicant :- Ankur Tomar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Dhaka
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sukrampal
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State and Mr. Sukram Pal Singh learned counsel for applicant.
2. First bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No. 263 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, P.S. Baraut, District Baghpat.
3. As per first information report, an altercation took place between five boys including the applicant with one Shani. The injured Akash Tomar who is brother of Shani when tried to help his brother, who was fired upon by one Malu alias Vicky with local fire arm due to which he was injured and was admitted in hospital where he is still undergoing treatment.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that even perusal of the first information report will make it evident that only a general role of catching hold of the injured's brother Shani is evident against the applicant. There is no role assigned to the applicant of having cause any fire arm injury upon Akash Tomar, the injured. It is further submitted that even otherwise the role of catching hold even if attributed to the applicant is not with regard to injured, but is with regard to his brother Shani.
5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for complainant has opposed the bail application with the submission that role of catching hold is clearly made out against the applicant.
6. Considering the submissions advanced, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that the only role attributed to the applicant is that of catching hold of one Shani and not that of injured Akash Tomar. There is no fire arm injury attributed at the instance of the applicant.
7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Ankur Tomar, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following 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 :- 22.8.2022
Prabhat
