Allahabad High Court
Fool Chandra Sharma @ Fool Singh vs State Of U.P. on 31 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27753 of 2022
Applicant :- Fool Chandra Sharma @ Fool Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava
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. 125 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 436, 307, 504 IPC, P.S. Tirwa, District Kannauj.
3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 15th April, 2022 at about 6.00 P.M. when the applicant in an intoxicated condition is said to have locked the informant and her children in a room and set fire to it. The informant is the wife of the applicant. It is further stated that the informant and the children thereafter escaped due to intervention of the neighbours.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that a minor quarrel had taken place between the applicant and his wife who is informant in the matter and the same has already been resolved. She has denied allegations levelled against him in the F.I.R. It is submitted that in fact that parties have patched up also evident from the fact that the informant is the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that the informant has supported the allegations levelled in F.I.R. in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
6. Upon consideration of aforesaid submissions advanced and perusal of material on record, it appears subject to evidence being led in trial, no injury has been caused to the informant or her children. Even otherwise his matter appears to be a quarrel between the spouses and it is also noticed that the informant herself is the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of application.
7. 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."
8. 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.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant Fool Chandra Sharma @ Fool 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 :- 31.8.2022
Prabhat
