Allahabad High Court
Kushalpal Singh vs State Of U.P. on 13 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54668 of 2022
Applicant :- Kushalpal Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhavesh Singh Jadaun,Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Dwivedi
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2.This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.100 of 2022 under Sections 302, 504, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Sasni Kotwali, District Hathras.
3. As per contents of first information report,the incident is said to have occurred on 08.05.2022 at about 10.00 P.M. when informant's husband is said to have been shot dead by one Krishna Kumar @ Kanha. Applicant has been named as an eye witness in the F.I.R. but has been taken into custody on the basis of additional statement of first informant casting suspicion upon applicant.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and in fact it is the applicant who is eye witness of the entire incident and informed everybody about complicity of Krishna Kumar @ Kanha in shooting dead the husband of informant. It is submitted that except for the applicant, there is no other eye witness account and applicant has been taken into custody only on the basis of suspicion cast upon him on the basis that he restrained the first informant from approaching her injured husband with a statement that the matter pertained to a police case and, therefore, she should not approach the injured. It is submitted that there is no direct or even indirect evidence against applicant who is under custody since 24.07.2022 with only charge sheet having been filed.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with submission that it is in fact the applicant who restrained the first informant from approaching her injured-husband out of fear that he would divulge the truth about complicity of applicant in shooting dead the deceased and therefore, he has rightly been taken into custody. It has also been submitted that as per statement of Ram Khiladi, the deceased went with applicant and soon thereafter firing of shots was heard and therefore last-seen evidence would clearly be 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, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that there is material contradiction in the contents of F.I.R. with additional statement of first informant with regard to narration of the incident. While in the F.I.R., applicant has been named as an eye witness, in the additional statement suspicion has been cast upon him only on account of fact that he restrained the informant from approaching her injured-husband. Except for the aforesaid suspicion, there does not appear, at this stage, to be any credible direct or indirect evidence against applicant. The statement of Ram Khiladi also indicates that he is not an eye witness and even otherwise indicates that immediately after hearing sound of gun shot, the applicant was heard shouting that the deceased has been fired upon by Krishna Kumar @ Kanha. As such, at this stage, there does not appear to be any credible evidence against applicant who is in jail since 24.07.2022 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 Kushalpal 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 :- 13.12.2022
kvg/-
