Allahabad High Court
Ram Kailash 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. - 42590 of 2022
Applicant :- Ram Kailash
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Indra Deo Mishra,Santosh Kumar Shukla
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.259 of 2022 under Section 306 I.P.C., police station Karchhana, District Prayagraj.
3. As per contents of first information report, an incident occurred on 01.08.2022 when one Daya Shankar who was on a motorcycle collided with wife of applicant due to which the applicant and his family members humiliated and assaulted the said Daya Shanker and his motorcycle was also allegedly kept by applicant. It is submitted that the said Daya Shanker thereafter reached his house and was subsequently found dead the next morning for having committed suicide by hanging. Applicant as been implicated in the F.I.R. under Section 306 I.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and even as per a bare perusal of the first information report, the ingredients of Section 107 I.P.C. read with Section 306 I.PC. are not satisfied since there is no allegation of any instigation or humiliation to the extent where the deceased would have no other choice but to have committed suicide. It is submitted that even the postmortem report does not corroborate the allegations levelled against the applicant in the F.I.R. and the eye witness accounts of one Mauji Lal and Rajesh Kumar also contradicted the allegations levelled against applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 05.08.2022 with only charge sheet having been filed.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that the deceased has committed suicide on account of his humiliation at the hands of applicant and therefore the provision of Section 306 I.P.C. would be fully attracted.
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, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that although allegations of applicant having assaulted the deceased as a result of accident has been alleged in the F.I.R. but the same do not appear to corroborate either by the postmortem report or even by eye witness accounts as indicated herein above. At this stage, there does not appear to be any evidence to indicate that provisions of Section 306 I.P.C. would be satisfied. The applicant is in jail since 05.08.2022 with only charge sheet having been filed. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Ram Kailash, 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
kvg/-
