Allahabad High Court
Rahul S/O Late Ramchandra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 30 June, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6980 of 2022
Applicant :- Rahul S/O Late Ramchandra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Sonal Pandey,Sonika Sahu
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Ms. Sonal Pandey, 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.276 of 2019 under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Para, District Lucknow.
3. As per contents of first information report, complainant's son was lured away from their house on 30.04.2019 at about 10.30 P.M. by applicant, Vineet and Parmeshwar. He was subsequently done to death and his body was thrown from the roof of the house of Parmeshwar.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and neither from the first information report nor the subsequent statements recorded, any motive can be assigned to the applicant. It is submitted that in the additional statement of Ravi Kumar, brother of the deceased, the contents of F.I.R. have not been supported since the deceased is said to have been taken from his house by Vipin and applicant instead of Vineet & applicant as stated in the first information report. It is as such submitted that there is clear contradictions in the statements recorded. Even otherwise it is stated that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant with regard to the incident said to have occurred and the applicant's name has been included only as a result of earlier enmity. It has also been submitted that the said Vipin has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application no.13153 of 2021, which is on record as Annexure-6 to the application and the case of the applicant is at par with that of co-accused Vipin.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that a bare perusal of not only the F.I.R. but the evidence collected during investigation clearly made out a case against the applicant. It is submitted that even as per the contents of F.I.R., the applicant can clearly be said to have been last seen with 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. Upon consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, at this stage and subject to further evidence being led in trial the contradiction in the contents of F.I.R. and statement of brother of the deceased Ravi Kumar appears to be correct, even otherwise neither any role nor any motive appears to be assigned against the applicant, as such, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Rahul, 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 :- 30.6.2022
kvg/-
