Allahabad High Court
Abrar Khan 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. - 6746 of 2022
Applicant :- Abrar Khan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Verma
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 opposite party - State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.321 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 308 IPC, Police Station - Mankapur, District - Gonda.
3. As per averment made in the first information report, incident pertains to14th October, 2018 at about 9.30 A.M. when the applicant along with other co-accused is said to have inflicted injuries upon the son of the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that initially the first information report was lodged only under Sections 147 and 323 IPC and benefit of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was granted to him. Where after Sections 148 and 308 IPC were added due to injuries suffered by one Balram Soni who suffered fracture of the left parietal bone. It is submitted that nature of injuries on rest of the persons has been indicated as simple in nature in the medical reports. It is submitted that the applicant is aged about 70 years and he had cooperated in the investigation and there is no previous criminal history. It is also submitted that there is no occasion for the applicant not to participate in the trial proceeding. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.06.2022.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the fact that most of the injuries suffered by the injured are simple in nature.
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, case for grant of bail is made out.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant - Abrar Khan, 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 :- 27.6.2022
KR
