Allahabad High Court
Arvind vs State Of U.P. on 23 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22665 of 2022
Applicant :- Arvind
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anup Kumar
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Krishan Kant Dubey, Advocate holding brief for Mr. Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Mr. Anup Kumar, learned counsel appearing for complainant.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 442 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Babugarh, District Hapur.
3. Vide order dated 27.07.2022, the matter had earlier been posted for hearing on 11.10.2022 but upon a subsequent application being made by the applicant, the matter was preponed and posted for hearing on 16.08.2022 on which day the matter could not be taken up and as such has listed today.
4. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have occurred on 19.09.2021 at about 06.30 P.M. when an altercation occurred between the applicant and co-accused and the complainant, Fateh Singh and his family members owing to a dispute over certain property which is also under civil litigation. The FIR states that the applicant alongwith co-accused subsequently entered into house of complainant and attacked his wife, son and daughter who suffered grievous injuries.
5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that reading of the FIR will indicate that only a general allegation has been made against the accused. He has drawn attention to the medical report pertaining to the son and daughter of complainant to submit that injuries indicated are simple in nature. However with regard to one injury each, X-ray of the head was advised. It is submitted that even from the statements of injured recorded, the entire role of causing injury has been attributed to co-accused Kuldeep who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order 28.07.2022 passed in bail application no.22530 of 2022. It is thus submitted that the applicant has not been specifically attributed the role of causing injury upon family members of the complainant. It is further submitted that subsequently on filing of charge-sheet, the applicability of Sections 307, 452 have been deleted.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that a perusal of the FIR as well as injured witnesses and eye witness clearly indicate the role of applicant in causing grievous injuries upon family member of complainant. It has also been submitted that even otherwise one injury each on the injured is not simple in nature and was in fact indicated to be grievous as per the supplementary medical report annexed to the counter affidavit.
7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that a general role in the altercation has been attributed to the applicant in the FIR. Even as per the statements of complainant, the injured children and eye witnesses, the main thrust of allegations is on co-accused Kuldeep who has already been enlarged on bail by orders passed by this Court as indicated herein above. The injury report also indicates the injuries suffered by family members of complainant to be simple in nature except for one injury each which even otherwise has been attributed to said Kuldeep.
8. 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."
9. 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.
10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
11. Let applicant, Arvind, 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 :- 23.8.2022
Subodh/-
