Allahabad High Court
Ashutosh vs State Of U.P. on 21 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46048 of 2022
Applicant :- Ashutosh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla,Prabhakar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Gupta,Mahesh Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel appearing for informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 334 of 2020 (Case no. 783 of 2021), under Sections 302, 307, 324, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Kuthaund, District Jalaun.
As per contents of F.I.R. the incident has taken place on 17th December, 2020 at about 11.00 A.M. when nominated persons including the applicant are said to have entered into an alteration with first informant and his family members with specific role of firing being assigned to the applicant.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed the present offence. It is further submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. Initially in this matter FIR was lodged on 19.05.2022 for the offence under Section 307 IPC regarding the offence said to have been committed on 17.05.2022. Delay occurred in lodging of the FIR has not been properly explained. It was further argued that one FIR on the basis of order passed on application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 307 IPC has also been lodged on the part of the applicant side regarding the same incident in which applicant side has also sustained injuries. If entire prosecution case is taken into consideration then present incident took place at spur of moment and it is the result of the sudden and grave provocation. It will not be possible at this stage to ascertain that which party was aggressor. Recovery is false and planted. No specific role was assigned in the FIR. Specific role for causing injuries assigned during investigation is after thought. It is further argued that applicant is in jail since 4.1.2021. Criminal cases shown as criminal history has been explained. Co-accused Sonu @ Shiv Ganesh Shukla, Nripendra Narayan Shukla and Krishna Kumar Shukla having similar role have already been admitted to bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5509/2021, 3466/2022 and 28334/2022 respectively.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant argued that a prima facie case is made out. Although date and place of incident in both the FIR are same but applicant side was aggressor. One person belonging to the informant side died during treatment due to injuries sustained in the matter. One prosecution witness has been examined. Trial is in progress. Main role for causing injuries is assigned to the present applicant. Thus, prayer for rejection of the bail was made.
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 applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R. along with co-accused with specific role of firing being attributed not only upon applicant but other co-accused as well. Learned counsel for applicant has drawn attention to medical report indicating previous head injuries being suffered by applicant and as such submits that the same has been suppressed in order to conceal genesis of dispute. Delay occurred in lodging of F.I.R. also does not have any explanation and aspect of altercation having resulted due to sudden and grave provocation is a matter to be examined by evidence during course of trial. Co-accused Sonu @ Shiv Ganesh Shukla, Nripendra Narayan Shukla and Krishna Kumar Shukla having similar role as that of applicant have already been enlarged on bail as indicated herein above. The applicant is under incarceration as an under trial since 4th January, 2021 and as yet only evidence of P.W. 1 is continuing.
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."
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.
Accordingly bail application is allowed.
Let applicant Ashutosh 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:-
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
The trial court is directed to expedite hearing of trial without granting any undue adjournments.
Order Date :- 21.12.2022
Prabhat
