Tejpal vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1885 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55062 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Tejpal
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Dubey,Anil Kumar Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhanshu Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record.

Heard SriAnil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, SriSudhanshu Singh, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Vishwa Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Tejpal under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 102 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 506, 307, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Bhuta, District Bareilly, during the pendency of the trial after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Bareilly, vide order dated 5.7.2021.

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 6.5.2021 has been lodged against the applicant and five other named accused persons by brother-in-law of the deceased stating that on 5.5.2021 at about 8:00 P.M., when the first informant was present in his house, at that time, the applicant and other five named accused persons entered in his house having country-made pistol, lathi and danda started committing mar-peet with him, at that time, sister-in-law Geeta Devi and nephew Lakhpat of the first informant tried to save him, the applicant and other accused persons also beaten them very badly, in which Geeta Devi has died and Lakhpat as well as first informant received serious injuries. Upon hearing the noise, the applicant and other accused persons fled away from the house of first informant.

After lodging of the first information report, inquest has been conducted on 6.5.2021 at 13:25 hours at the mortuary of district hospital. Post-mortem of the body of the deceased-Geeta Devi has also been conducted on 6.5.2021 at 2:30 P.M. As per post-mortem report, three lacerated wound were found on the head of the deceased, one injury is related to abrasion. Medical examination of the first informant, Lakhpat, Pothiram, Rakha, Chandrakali and Harish Kumar have been conducted on 5.5.2021. After recording the statements of injured and other prosecution witnesses, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other five named accused persons on 11.7.2021. The applicant was arrested on 7.5.2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that from the applicant side, one cross FIR has also been lodged in Case Crime No. 103 of 2021 under Sections 34, 147, 323, 504, 506, 352 and 452 I.P.C. against the first informant and other persons. It is further submitted from the side of applicant, Mamta, Munish Gangwar, Triveni, Harish and Tejpal have also received serious injuries. Their medical examination have been conducted in the presence of police. It is further argued that there is no explanation by the prosecution with regard to injuries sustained by the injured from the side of applicant. It is further argued that only general role of marpeet has been assigned to the applicant. No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused Kamal @ Kamalpati, Triveni, Omkar and Munish Kumar having similar role have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 33653 of 2021, vide order dated 8.12.2021, 36864 of 2021, vide order dated 15.12.2021, 1004 of 2022, vide order dated 22.2.2022 and 55289 of 2021, vide order dated 17.1.2022 respectively, copy of all the bail orders are kept on record. It is next contended that the applicant be also enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.5.2021 having no criminal history. It is lastly submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the first informant have supported the order passed by the Sessions Court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and they further submit that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But, they could not point out any material to the contrary. They further submit that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will misuse the liberty of bail.

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) One cross FIR of the present case has been lodged from the applicant side against the first informant and other persons;

(b) Five persons from the side of the applicant have also sustained injuries;

(c) Only general allegation of assault has been levelled against the applicant;

(d) No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicant;

(c) Co-accused Kamal @ Kalmalpati, Triveni, Omkar and Munish Kumar having similar role have already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court;

It is settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

Let applicant, Tejpal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) 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 the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient case, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance of law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 4.5.2022

CS/-