Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra vs State Of U.P. on 29 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28006 of 2020
Applicant :- Dharmendra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Purushottam Dixit,Akshaya Kumar,Anshul Tiwari,Ashutosh Upadhyay,Lihazur Rahman Khan,Mahendra Singh,Renu Singh,Vikas Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Araf Khan,Preet Pal Singh Rathore
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1.Heard Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, Mr. Saifudullah and Mr. Preet Pal Singh Rathor, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 174 of 2020, under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of I.P.C., Police Station- Bahjoi, District-Sambhal.
3. As per contents of F.I.R., an altercation took place between two groups one of which was said to be led by the applicant, who is husband of the present Pradhan and next one was led by Mitra Pal who is husband of the ex-pradhan. It is stated that firing also took place during the said altercation.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him on account of previous political enmity as it is evident from the F.I.R. version itself. It is next submitted that although firing is said to have taken place, as per the injury report, injured Dharmveer has sustained only two injuries, which are not fire-arm injuries and are not grievous in nature. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 08.05.2020.
5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application but do not dispute the fact that there is no fire arm injury caused to this injured.
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 submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, considering that although firing is said to have taken place in the incident there is no fire arm injury caused to any of the injured; the injuries suffered by the injured also appear to be simple in nature; the applicant is admittedly in jail since 08.05.2020 and considering that the trial has yet not been competed a case for grant of bail is made out.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Dharmendra, 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 :- 29.8.2022
Neetu
