Allahabad High Court
Shubham Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 28 June, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6780 of 2022
Applicant :- Shubham Mishra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla,Mohit Tiwari
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. Power on behalf of the informant has been filed Mr. Rajneesh Kumar Verma, Advocate. The same is taken on record.
3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.60 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 506 IPC, Police Station - Haliyapur, District - Sultanpur.
4. As per contents of the FIR, the incident is said to have occurred on 16.04.2022 at about 8.00 AM when the applicant along with co-accused are said to have had an altercation with the informant and his family members. It is submitted that one Ravishankar and Ramashankar @ Umashankar fired upon the informant and his family with a licensed rifle whereas the applicant has been assigned the role of causing hurt by sticks.
5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that a perusal of the first information report along with the statement of injured Sachin and Chandra Prakash clearly assigned the role to the applicant of beating up the injured witness Sachin with sticks. It is submitted that the injury report clearly indicates two wounds upon the person of Sachin; one being a lacerated wound, muscle deep and back of skull and one contusion on the back of the neck. It is submitted that while only two injuries are present, hurt being caused by sticks has been attributed in a general manner upon four persons. As such it is submitted that there is no specific injury caused by the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.04.2022.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application, particularly with the submission that reading of the statement of injured witness Sachin along with injury report clearly corroborates the charges levelled against the applicant.
7. 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."
8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced and perusal of material on record, at this stage and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that the role assigned to the applicant is of causing hurt along with three other persons to the injured witnesses by beating up them with sticks. The injury report clearly indicates two injuries upon the body of the injured Sachin. A general role appears to have been assigned in the first information report.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant - Shubham Mishra, 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 :- 28.6.2022
KR
