Ram Ji Gautam vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 11224 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2975 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Ram Ji Gautam
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Ravi Prakash,Atul Verma,Digvijay Singh,Hari Krishna Verma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Henry,Shivendra Pratap Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

In compliance of the orders dated 1.2.2022, 21.4.2022 and 18.7.2022 passed by this Court, current status of trial has been submitted by the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow vie letter No.3532/XV-9/98 dated July 27, 2022, perusal of which shows that the evidence of P.W.1 has concluded and the case is fixed for remaining cross examination of P.W.2 for 28.7.2022 and the efforts are being made to conclude the examination of witnesses of fact.

Heard Shri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shivendra Pratap Singh alongwith Shri Anurag Henry, learned counsel for the complainant, Shri Anirudha Kumar Singh, learned AGA-1 for the State and perused the record.

The applicant, Ram Ji Gautam has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 530 of 2020, under Sections 302,323,504 IPC, Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to enmity and village party bandi. No such incident as alleged by the prosecution took place, even though the applicant was not present on spot on the date of alleged incident. His name was mala fidely taken by the prosecution. The present FIR dated 30.9.2020 was lodged against three persons including the present applicant. It was stated in the FIR that when cousin brother of the informant Ansar Ali, Shrafat Ali etc. were repairing 'nand' which is adjacent to the land of one Ram Prasad Raidas, then all the named accused persons in the FIR came with lathi and danda and iron rod and when father of the informant came in between quarrel then they hit by iron rod on the head of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the whole prosecution story is false and fabricated. The investigating officer without considering the material on record and also considering the evidence in an arbitrary and mechanical manner submitted charge sheet against all the accused persons named in the FIR.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the FIR there is general allegation against all the accused persons and no specific allegation has been made against the applicant and other coaccused persons that they hit the deceased or injured person by what weapon. Injured person namely Subedar Ali was brought to the KGMU, Lucknow and was declared dead and other injured persons were undergo for their treatment. The statement of the wife of the deceased namely Sameema was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she stated that coaccused Ram Das hit the deceased who is the husband of Sameema by iron rod on his head and thus he fell down and rest of the accused hit the deceased by lathi and danda but has not specified that on which part of the body the other coaccused hit. The statement of the witness (daughter of the deceased namely Kumari Sabiha) was also recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. , in which she repeated the same version and stated that coaccused Ram Das hit the deceased on his head by iron rod but has not made any allegation against the present applicant that by which weapon he hit the deceased and on which part of the body. The main witness namely Ansar Ali who was injured alongwith deceased has repeated the same version and said that coaccused Ram Das hit the deceased on his head by iron rod but has not assigned any specific role to the present applicant and only stated that he hit the deceased by lathi and danda but has not specified the place on which part of the body the present applicant hit by lathi and danda, even though injured Ansar Ali in his statement recorded before the court below on 30.05.2022 has not specified any specific role against the present applicant and only stated that coaccused Ram Das hit the deceased on his head by iron rod.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that that in absence of any specific allegation levelled against the present applicant that on which part of body of the deceased the applicant hit, it appears the case of false implication.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that from the side of applicant, Deepa Gautam wife of Ram Prasad Raidas had lodged an FIR against the deceased, injured Ansar Ali and two other persons regarding the same incident. This FIR was lodged on the same day i.e 30/05/2020 and submitted that it is a cross case. There is no motive to kill the deceased. It is due to sudden provocation the fight took place between the parties regarding the dispute of 'nand'. There is no direct role of the applicant nor there is any direct allegation against the applicant that how he hit the deceased and by what weapon.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 01.10.2020 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year. After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellants are already in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 01.10.2020 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

Shri Anirudha Kumar Singh, learned AGA-1 and Shivendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the role of the applicant is also identical and similar to that of other coaccused and he has also hit the deceased on his head which caused the injury, resulting the deceased died in the hospital during the course of treatment. Therefore the bail application of the applicant may be rejected.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering the fact that there is general allegation levelled against all the accused persons named in the FIR regarding hitting the deceased and other injured persons with lathi-danda and iron rod but in the statement of witnesses namely Sameema wife of deceased, the daughter of the deceased namely Kumari Sabiha and injured Ansar Ali who have specified the role of hitting the deceased on his head to coaccused Ram Das by iron rod. There is no specific allegation by any of the witnesses that the applicant hit the deceased on his head or by which weapon. It was only stated by the witnesses that the applicant was having lathi and danda but on which part he hit they are silent. As per the post-mortem examination report of the deceased there are three injuries which appear to be caused by hard and blunt object (sariya). There is no any allegation that the applicant hit the deceased by iron rod, even though in the statement recorded before the court below on 30/05/2022 the main injured Ansar Ali has not stated anything against the present applicant that he hit the deceased by what weapon on his head but has assigned the role to one Ram Das that he hit the deceased on his head by iron rod, therefore, in absence of any specific allegation levelled against the applicant, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail by this Court and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh(supra) and Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

Let the applicant, Ram Ji Gautam, involved in Case Crime No. 530 of 2020, under Sections 302,323,504 IPC, Police Station Kakori, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

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

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

(6) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8) 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.

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

Order Date :- 25.8.2022

GSY