Allahabad High Court
Krishna Chandra @ Bhola 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. - 42727 of 2022
Applicant :- Krishna Chandra @ Bhola
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Yadav,Ray Sahab Yadav
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ajendra Kumar learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for informant and 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. 96 of 2022 under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Jalesar, District Etah.
3. F.I.R. has been initially lodged against unidentified persons with the allegation that on 25th April, 2022 at about 1.30 A.M., some unknown person fired upon and killed the informant's husband while he was sleeping along with family members. Applicant has been taken into custody on the basis of additional statement of informant identifying the applicant as being the perpetrator of crime.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that although F.I.R. has been lodged on the very date of incident but it is clearly indicated that firing was done by unidentified person. It is also submitted that subsequently in the additional statements of informant and her family members, the applicant has been named as perpetrator of crime without any cogent explanation as to why the applicant was not nominated in the initial stage of filing of F.I.R. particularly when the applicant is said to be a family member of the deceased. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of weapon has taken place six days subsequent to the date of incident and that too from an open place allegedly at the instance of applicant but without any independent witness. As such it is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated and is in jail since 2nd May, 2022 with only charge sheet having been filed.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that at the time of lodging of F.I.R., the informant and her family members were in a highly distressed state and therefore could not name the applicant as perpetrator of crime and it was only subsequently when they were able to calm themselves that the applicant was identified. It is submitted that recovery of weapon used in the murder has also been at the instance of applicant.
6. 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 incident has taken place on 25th April, 2022 & F.I.R. lodged against unidentified persons but the applicant has been named by informant and her family members subsequently in the additional statements although applicant is a family member of deceased and informant but no cogent explanation is forthcoming for non identification of applicant as perpetrator of the crime at the first instance. Recovery of alleged weapon is also about a week subsequent to the event from an open place. The applicant is in jail since 2nd May, 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 Krishna Chandra @ Bhola 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
