Allahabad High Court
Ayodhya Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 12 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43943 of 2022
Applicant :- Ayodhya Prasad
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Pandey
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. 132 of 2022 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, 304 IPC, P.S. Lalganj, District Mirzapur.
3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 4th June, 2022 at about 6.00 P.M. when the applicant along with co-accused are said to have attacked and assaulted the informant and his family members due to which one Dukhni aged about 70 years is said to have passed away.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of fact that he is family member of other co-accused. It is submitted that only general allegations have been levelled in the F.I.R. pertaining to alleged attack on the informant and his family members and it is only subsequently in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the role of applicant having a sharp edged weapon (katwasa) has been alleged. The said allegation has been corroborated by the injured witness Collector. It is however submitted that as per post mortem report, only two lacerated wounds are present on the body of deceased which can be inflicted only by a hard and blunt object and not sharp edged weapon which the applicant is alleged to be carrying. It is also submitted that injuries suffered allegedly by other family members of the informant have also been opined by medical report to have been caused by blunt objects. As such it is submitted that none of the injuries can be attributable to the applicant although he is in jail since 24th June, 2022 with only charge sheet having been filed.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that the statement of informant under Section 161 clearly makes out presence of the applicant at the scene of the crime and therefore the applicant has been rightly implicated under Sections 147, 148, 149 IPC.
6. Mr. Indra Deep Dubey learned holding brief of Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey has sought adjournment in the matter on the ground that learned counsel for informant is out of town however it is seen that the bail application has been filed on 22nd September, 2022 without any objections being filed by learned counsel for informant and since matter pertains to rights of applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the adjournment request is therefore declined.
7. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that only general allegations of applicant's presence at the scene of crime have been alleged in the F.IR. and it is only in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the informant and the injured witness that applicant has been specifically named having been armed by sharp edged weapon. However it appears that the injuries caused upon informant and his family members along with deceased do not appear to be corroborated by medical and post mortem reports. Learned counsel for informant has drawn attention to the F.I.R. lodged by the applicant as well against the informant pertaining to the same incident which has been registered as case crime No. 142 of 2022 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 427 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 24th June, 2022 with only charge sheet having been filed.
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 Ayodhya Prasad 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 :- 12.12.2022
Prabhat
