Allahabad High Court
Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Alias Brijesh ... vs State Of U.P Thru. 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. - 6375 of 2022
Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Alias Brijesh S/O Raghavram Dwivedi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Department Of Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Chaudhary,Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary,Sanjay Kumar
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 State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.170 of 2021 under Sections 376, 366 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Harraiya, District Balrampur.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that a bare perusal of the contents of the first information report clearly indicates that no case under Section 366 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. Sister of the complainant is clearly indicated to be major even in the first information report. It is submitted that although statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is against the applicant but also is quite improbable as can be seen from the statement itself. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the medical examination report of the victim which indicates no sign of external injury and, therefore, does not make out any case even under Section 376 I.P.C.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application while placing reliance on the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. with the submission that the same clearly makes out a case against the applicant.
5. 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."
6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, it is apparent that no case under Section 376 I.P.C has been indicated in the first information report but the same is corroborated by the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, at this stage and subject to further evidence being led in trial, the medical examination of the victim clearly indicates lack of of any external injury or force being inflicted by the applicant due to which this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
8. Let applicant Sunil Kumar Dwivedia alias Brijesh, 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
kvg/-
