Allahabad High Court
Sugreev Singh 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. - 18213 of 2022
Applicant :- Sugreev Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 464 of 2021 under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, P.S. Tirwa , district Kannauj.
3. As per contents of the First Information Report, the applicant along with the co-accused is said to have entered into an altercation with one Satendra Singh, brother of informant and is said to have attacked to him with sticks resulting in grievous injuries to the said person.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him since, admittedly, already civil litigation is pending between the parties with regard to disputed property. It is further submitted that the First Information Report has been lodged without explaining delay. The incident is said to have occurred on 15th October, 2021 while the F.I.R. has been lodged on 26th October, 2021 which is clearly a tutored one. It has also been submitted that with regard to the incident in question mother of the applicant has also lodged an N.C.R. on 28.10.2021. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 21.03.2022.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that a perusal of F.I.R. clearly makes out a cognizable offence against applicant.
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 the parties have entered into a sudden altercation resulting in injuries on both sides. Although, the injury report indicates grievous injuries on the brother of the informant but none of them appears to be on any vital part. The initial medical injury report indicates the injuries to be simple in nature. There is no previous criminal history of the applicant and the matter prima facie, is necessarily required to be established in trial upon consideration of the evidnece led by the prosecution and considering the aforesaid, the applicant is found entitled to bail and his bail application as such deserves to be allowed.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Sugreev Singh, 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
