Veerpal vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 6651 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1149 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Veerpal
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar,Karuna Kant Gupta,Prabhat Kumar Singh,Ram Kishor
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit today in Court, which is taken on record.

Heard Shri Karuna Kant Gupta, the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The applicant, Veerpal, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 409 of 2020, under Sections 304, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Beniganj, District Hardoi.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. No such incident as alleged by the prosecution took place. The F.I.R. was lodged by the real brother of the applicant with malafide intention to grab the ancestral property. As per the prosecution version on 01.08.2020 the applicant, Veerpal, came to house after drinking liquor and started abusing to their grandmother, namely, Savitri Devi, aged about 85 years, who scolded the applicant, then the applicant got fallen down his grandmother on the ground and dashed her head from the wall, on account of which she became unconscious.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that initially F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 308, 323, 504 I.P.C. The injured was admitted to Government Hospital, from where she was referred to District Hospital, Hardoi for treatment, where she was medically examined and was advised to K.G.M.U., Lucknow for treatment, but due to non availability of money the informant has taken back his mother to his house where she died on 02.08.2020. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer added Section 304 I.P.C. and deleted Section 308 I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that four injuries were found on the person of the deceased, which are simple in nature, and cause of death of the deceased is coma due to ante mortem injuries.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that statement of informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which he has narrated the same version of the F.I.R. It has also been argued that there is no independent witness of the alleged incident except the informant who is the real brother of applicant. The informant, in his statement recorded before the court on 30.11.2021, which is filed as Annexure No. R.A.-1 to the rejoinder affidavit, has not supported the prosecution version and stated that no such incident took pace, the applicant did not fallen down his grandmother, nor he dashed her head with the wall. Thus, P.W.1 who is the first informant declared hostile as he has not supported the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer also examined one Sanjay (P.W.2), who has also not supported the prosecution case and his statement was recorded on 19.05.2022, a copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that both the informant (P.W.1) and the witness, Sanjay (P.W.2) have not supported the prosecution case, therefore, involvement of applicant in the crime is not proved. The grandmother of informant received injuries when she fell down. There is no role of applicant in falling of his grandmother, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail by this Court sympathetically.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 03.08.2019 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year. After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellants are already in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 03.08.2019 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

Learned A.G.A. while opposing the prayer for bail of applicant submitted that applicant is involved in a heinous crime, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile and cause of death of the deceased is coma due to ante mortem injuries, and considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Kamal (supra), Takht Singh (supra) and Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

Let the applicant, Veerpal, involved in Case Crime No. 409 of 2020, under Sections 304, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Beniganj, District Hardoi, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

(6) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

Order Date :- 13.7.2022

Mustaqeem