Allahabad High Court
Sarojini W/O Sarwan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6353 of 2022
Applicant :- Sarojini W/O Sarwan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.93 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 304 IPC, registered in Police Station Hargaon, District Sitapur.
3. As per allegations made in the first information report, the complainant alongwith his brother had reached their agricultural field on 19.02.2022 in the afternoon where they saw the accused cutting some crops over their land and on being told not to do so, the accused set upon the complainant and his brother with sticks which resulted in injury to the complainant and subsequent death of his brother.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that a perusal of the postmortem report clearly indicates that there is no injury on the body of deceased. Even other-wise only a general role has been alleged against the accused without any specific injury having been caused by the applicant.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party has opposed the bail application with the submission that the statement of mother of deceased clearly indicates the role of applicant having put her foot on the neck of the deceased.
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 aforesaid facts, at this stage and subject to further evidence, it does appear that only a general allegation has been made in the first information report without any specific role being assigned to the applicant. There is no statement in the postmortem report that death has occasioned due to asphyxiation. 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.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant, Sarojini, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her 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 her 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 her, 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 her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 27.6.2022
Subodh/-
