Allahabad High Court
Ram Nath vs State Of U.P. on 29 June, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4389 of 2021
Applicant :- Ram Nath
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav,Rajendra Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.
2. First bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No. 269 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Musafir Khana, District Amethi. As per contents of the first information report, the incident is said to have occurred on 12th July, 2020 at about 5.00 P.M. when the applicant along with co-accused is alleged to have attacked the informant's nephew Kallu alias Kansraj. It is stated that on account of aforesaid attack, informant's nephew was grievously injured and subsequently passed away due to injuries suffered.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. will indicate that no role of causing any injury upon the deceased has been assigned to the applicant and it is only in the statement of P.W.1 and the alleged eye witnesses Om Prakash alias Sonu and Smt. Pushpa that the initial story was sought to be made better. It is submitted that even as per the subsequent statements of the alleged eye witnesses, the role of causing knife injuries upon the deceased has been attributed to one Sandeep with Saddam and Abdulla being assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased. It is submitted that in none of the statements has any role been assigned to the applicant of having any knife on his person at the time of attack. It is further submitted that the statement of P.W.1, also named Kansraj Pasi is only hear say and he was not an eye witness to the incident. It is therefore submitted that apart from the aforesaid, there is no other direct evidence linking the applicant with the injuries causing death of the deceased.
4. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that even from a perusal of the statements of alleged eye witnesses, the role of applicant is clearly made out in terms of Sections 34 and 149 of IPC. However it is not denied that as per the contents of the first information report, there is allegation of previous enmity between the informant and the accused.
5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the F.I.R. and statements of the alleged eye witnesses, there is no statement of the applicant having any knife on his person at the time of attack. Neither the F.I.R. nor statement of alleged eye witness Om Prakash alias Sonu indicate any knife injury being inflicted upon the deceased by the applicant, although a general role of knife injury has been attributed to all the accused in the statement of Smt. Pushpa. Post mortem injuries indicated in the post mortem report are as follows:-
"i. I.W. 2.0 cm X 10 cm. (Rt.) side of chin/face 2 cm only for mouth.
ii. I.W. 4 cm X10 cm bone deep (Rt.) side of neck 7 cm below (Rt.) Ear.
iii. I.W. 2,1/2 cm X 1 cm. muscle & bone deep on (Rt.) side back of neck 6 cm only for no.(ii) (stub---)
iv. I.W. 10cm X 2,1/2cm beside deep (Lt.) side of lower----3cm below the---(stitched wound)
v. I.W. 3cm X 2cm bone deep (Lt.) side on just before (Lt.)-crust bone (state injury)
vi. I.W. 3 cm X 1/2 cm X bone deep on (Lt.) side of hip 3 cm below the ---no.(v) (state injury)
vii. I.W. 2 cm. X 1 cm X bone deep on (Lt.) side of back of chest 9 cm ---the lower angle of (Lt.) scapula/---
viii. I.W. 2 cm X 1cm X--- & bone deep just belwo (lT) Scarpela
- I.W. 3cm X 1 cm X bone deep on top of skull."
6. It has been the submission of learned counsel for applicant that in all the injuries indicted in the post mortem report, some are bone deep but without any punctured injury. The same may at this stage subject to further evidence being led may be attributable to a weapon in use other than a knife as well. It is relevant that another co-accused Devmati has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 17.2.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4233 of 2021.
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. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and particularly the statements of alleged eye witnesses, at this stage and subject to further evidence being led, it appears that there is no role assigned to the applicant of having any knife on his person at the time of attack and there is no other evidence whereby it can be said that the applicant is linked to the fatal injury.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Ram Nath, 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 :- 29.6.2022
prabhat
