Allahabad High Court
Guddu @ Arun 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. - 17709 of 2022
Applicant :- Guddu @ Arun
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt
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. 590 of 2020 under Section 302 IPC relating to P.S. Bharthana, District Etawah.
3. As per contents of FIR, due to property dispute the incident is said to have taken place on Ist November, 2020 when the applicant along with co-accused are said to have assaulted their father who is also the father of the first informant. Due to injuries sustained in the assault, the injured is said to have subsequently passed away.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and has indicated the fact that F.I.R. has been lodged after five days without any cogent explanation for same. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to certified copies of deposition of witnesses of fact as P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 with submission that none of them have supported prosecution version due to which they were declared hostile. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 7th November, 2020 with evidence of only four prosecution witnesses having been completed although as per charge sheet there are total of nine witnesses.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application but does not dispute the fact situation.
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 there is considerable delay in lodging of F.I.R. without any cogent explanation for same which may indicate deliberation and improvement. During course of trial, none of the prosecution witnesses of fact as P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 have supported the prosecution version due to which they were declared hostile. Applicant is in jail since 7th November, 2020 and five more prosecution witnesses remain to be examined. There does not appear to be any eye witness account of the incident.
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 Guddu @ Arun 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
Prabhat
