Allahabad High Court
Ram Kumar 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. - 31756 of 2022
Applicant :- Ram Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Singh Yadav,Ram Sagar Yadav
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, Mr. Narain Swarup, Advocate holding brief for Mr. Dinesh Singh Yadav, learned counsel for complainant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.277 of 2021 under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Amanpur, District Kasganj.
3. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have occurred on 06/07.11.2021 at about 12.00 a.m. when the informant's uncle Virendra Singh is said to have been fired upon by the applicant by local fire arms at the exhortation of one Sukhpal @ Banti.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him as would be apparent from the initial medical report which states that the injuries suffered by Virendra Singh was caused by hard and blunt object. It is submitted that the supplementary injury report thereafter indicates the injuries to be simple in nature while the report of surgeon was awaited. As such it is submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report, the same are not corroborated by the injury report and as such no case under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the bail application with the submission that a bare perusal of the first information report clearly makes out a cognizable offence under Section 307 I.P.C. although it is undisputed that the nature of injuries have been indicated in the supplementary report as simple.
6. 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."
7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it appears that as per the first medical report, the injury is said to have been caused by hard or blunt object whereas the supplementary medical report indicates the injuries to be simple in nature, at this stage and subject to further evidence being led in trial, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case,this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Ram Kumar, 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
kvg/-
