Deepak vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 21359 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43940 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Deepak
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh,Dileep Kumar Shukla
 
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. 57 of 2022 under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Dhanari, District Sambhal.

3. F.I.R. has been filed against unknown persons and as per contents thereof, incident is said to have taken place on 12th February, 2022 at about 2.30 A.M. when unknown persons are said to have shot dead Smt. Kanti Devi relative of the first informant.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which is amply borne out by the fact that the first informant despite being a close relative of the deceased as well as the main accused Veer Pal has not identified anyone in the F.I.R. It is submitted that it is only five days later on 17th February, 2022 that an application was given by him for the first time indicating the co-accused Veer Pal as being the main perpetrator of crime with applicant having accompanied him during course of murder. It is submitted that there is no eye witness account and applicant has been taken into custody on the basis of statement of villagers namely Shripal and Ram Niwas which too was recorded on 26th February, 2022 which is almost after fortnight. It is further submitted that even as per the aforesaid statements, at best there is last seen evidence against the applicant, who does not have any previous criminal history and there is no recovery effected from him. It is further submitted that main gist of allegations is on co-accused Veer Pal.

5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that even as per F.I.R., death has occasioned due to fire army injury which is amply corroborated as per post mortem report. It is submitted that there is no eye witness account but the ladies of the family in their statements recorded on 17th February, 2022 have clearly indicated presence of applicant at the scene and time of crime. It is submitted that charge sheet against applicant has also been filed under Section 302 IPC with 21 prosecution witnesses.

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 although F.I.R. has been file against unknown persons, applicant's name has been introduced as an accomplice of main accused Veer Pal by the first informant by later five days after the date of incident specifically identifying the aforesaid persons. There does not appear to be any explanation as to why the aforesaid persons were not identified in the F.I.R. when the main accused Veer Pal himself is a member of family. There does not appear to be an eye witness account and even as per statements of villagers, at this stage, at best there is only evidence of last scene which being a weak evidence requires corroboration at the stage of trial by evidence. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history nor is there any recovery from him. The main gist of the allegations being against co-accused Veer Pal. Applicant is in jail since Ist March, 2022 and charge sheet has been filed under Section 302 IPC although in none of the statements, there is any indication as to the person who has allegedly fired shots on the deceased.

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 Deepak 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 :- 16.12.2022

Prabhat