Allahabad High Court
Mubarik And 3 Others 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. - 56232 of 2022
Applicant :- Mubarik, Aslam, Reshma and Furkan @ Kurban
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Srivastava,Mohd. Farooq
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deisy Pundir,Rahul Singh Tomar
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, 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.350 of 2022 under Section 306 I.P.C. P.S. Baghpat, District Baghpat.
3. As per contents of first information report, allegedly the applicants were known to the son of first informant who was in the profession of hair cutting for the past one year in Bangalore. It is stated that applicants conspired and stole the money of deceased and also humiliated him in the process due to which he committed suicide.
4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against them. It is submitted that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has any time or date been indicated when such an event has taken place due to which and as a proximate cause of which the deceased committed suicide. It is submitted that only general allegations have been levelled in the F.I.R. without even indicating the nature of humiliation faced by the deceased. As such, it is submitted that ingredients of Section 107 I.P.C. are clearly not attracted in the present case although charge sheet in the matter has already been filed having 12 witnesses.
5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail with submission that incident of stealing from the deceased along with his humiliation are clearly narrated not only in the F.I.R. but also in the statement of first informant and as such cognizable offence is clearly made out.
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, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, at this stage and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that although allegations of stealing money of deceased and his humiliation have been indicated in the F.I.R. but the same appear to be general in nature without indicating any date or time or proximity of alleged humiliation of deceased with the suicide being committed by him as a result thereof. At this stage, ingredients of Section 107 I.P.C. do not appear to be attracted in the matter although charge sheet has already been filed. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case,this Court finds, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicants Mubarik, Aslam, Reshma and Furkan @ Kurban, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond and two sureties 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 15.12.2022
kvg/-
