Allahabad High Court
Pintu Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42125 of 2022
Applicant :- Pintu Chauhan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Raj Singh,D.M.Tripathi,Manjeet Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Shrivastava
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Order on Application
Application has been filed seeking correction in the nomenclature pertaining to the applicant. It is submitted that inadvertently the applicant's name in the bail application has been indicated as Pintu Chaudhary instead of Pintu Chauhan which is purely typographical error.
In view of submission, the application is allowed.
Learned counsel for applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the memo of bail application and accompanying affidavit during the course of day.
Office is directed to issue copy to the corrected name of applicant in the bail order.
Order in Memo of Bail Application
1. Heard Mr. Manjeet Kumar, learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as Mr. Anurag Shrivastava, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.164 of 2022, under Sections 304, 323, 504, 354, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Afzalgarh, District Bijnor.
3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have occurred on 24.06.2022 at about 04.00 P.M. when the applicant along with co-accused is said to have reached the place of incident and started mis-behaving with the first informant. It is stated that the husband of first informant objected to the acts of applicant and co-accused due to which a dispute ensue and an altercation took place in which all the four persons nominated in the FIR assaulted the husband of first informant showering him with kicks and assaulting him with sticks and rods. It is stated that due to aforesaid assault, the husband of first informant suffered grievous injuries and subsequently passed away.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only account of simple dispute pertaining to parking of vehicle. It is submitted that neither the inquest nor the postmortem report support allegations levelled against the applicant since neither of them indicate any external injury on the body of deceased except for an abrasion of left knee joint as indicated in the postmortem report which also indicates death having occasioned as a result of shock due to myocardial infraction. As such, it is submitted that death has occasioned due to natural causes and not as a result of any assault by the applicant who is under incarceration since 25.06.2022 with only charge-sheet having been filed.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with the submission that the allegations as levelled in the FIR are clearly supported and corroborated by the first informant in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
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 submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that although allegations of assault by the applicant and co-accused on the husband of first informant have been indicated in the FIR as well as in the statements of first informant recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. but at this stage they do not appear to be corroborated either by the inquest or by the postmortem report which do not indicate any external injury on the body of deceased except for an abrasion of left knee joint and death having occasioned as a result of shock due to myocardial infraction. Applicant is under incarceration since 25.06.2022 with only charge-sheet having been filed.
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, Pintu Chauhan, 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 :- 15.12.2022
Subodh/-
