Allahabad High Court
Ramesh vs State Of U.P. on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43828 of 2022
Applicant :- Ramesh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Kashyap
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record.
1A. 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.25 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 306, 355 I.P.C., P.S Barkheka, District Pilibhit.
3. As per contents of first information report lodged through Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the husband of first informant had taken loan from the applicant and co-accused but was unable to return the same due to which demand was made by them on 11.10.2020 and the informant's husband was publicly humiliated on not being able to repay the loan amount. It is stated that due to aforesaid humiliation, the first informant's husband was quite depressed and therefore committed suicide.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only in order to avoid repayment of loan amount. It is submitted that although F.I.R. indicates one Nanhe Lal & Gagan Pandey being eye witness account who are also relatives of first informant as having witnessed the humiliation but the aforesaid persons in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have completely denied the incident with statement that the deceased was a habitual drinker and had been injured a number of times in an inebriated condition. It is submitted that even the first informant in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. admits that her husband had a drinking problem due to which he had suffered injuries on a number of occasions. It is thus submitted that there is neither any eye witness account nor corroborating evidence with regard to complicity of applicant. It is also submitted that even otherwise the ingredients of Section 107 I.P.C. are not made out although applicant is under incarceration since 12.08.2022 and the charge sheet in the matter has already been submitted.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that proximate cause between humiliation and suicide 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 and upon perusal of the material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that although allegations have been levelled against applicant of having caused humiliation of deceased due to which he committed suicide but the allegations appear to be general and vague in nature and at this stage do not appear to attract ingredients of Section 107 I.P.C. Eye witness accounts indicated in the F.I.R. also do not support the allegations. Earlier, a final report in the matter had been submitted but upon further investigation as directed by the court concerned, charge sheet has been filed. Previous criminal history of applicant has already been explained in the supplementary affidavit. 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 Ramesh, 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
kvg/-
