Udal Bind vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 2465 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41419 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Udal Bind
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Sharma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Udal Bind under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 89 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 304, 308, 325, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Dhannapur, District- Chandauli during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Chandauli vide order dated 31.08.2021.

Brief facts of the present case are that the First Information Report dated 15.05.2021 has been lodged against the applicant and three other persons, under section 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code by the nephew of the deceased stating therein that on 15.05.2021 at about 08:00, the applicant and other three named persons started abusing the first informant and when he resisted, they committed marpit with him by kicks and fits and danda, due to which first informant sustained injuries, his parents reached for rescue. They committed marpit to his parents and his parents were also sustained injuries and they also committed marpit with first informant's uncle's Mahendra, Birendra and Praduman and they were also sustained injuries. The applicant and co-accused persons fled away from the spot and threatened of dire consequences. Many people had seen this incident at that time.

After lodging of the first information report, medical examination of the injured Praduman, Mahendra Bind, Sangeeta, Akash Bind (first informant) and Gauri Shankar, Shankar Bind and Bijendra was conducted on 15.05.2021 at 11:09 P.M., 10:55 P.M.; 11:40 P.M.; 11:30 P.M.; 11:15 P.M., 10:45 P.M., after the death of the injured Praduman on 17.05.2021, inquest proceedings of the body of the deceased was conducted on 17.05.2021 at 20:05; postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 18.05.2021 at 03:25 P.M. As per medical report of the injured (now deceased) Praduman two lacerated wound were found on the head and one abrasion injury of his thigh. After recording the statement of the injured, first informant and other prosecution witnesses, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant and other three named persons on 31.07.2021. The applicant was arrested on 26.07.2021.

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 general allegations of committing marpit by kicks and fits and danda has been assigned to applicant and other three named co-accused persons. No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the present applicant. It is further submitted that after two months and one week of the incident, Shimla, who is sister of the first informant assigned the role of weapon of iron rod in the hands of the present applicant and one Raju Bind. It is further argued that the cross-case of the incident has been lodged by the applicant's side. Sudama Bind father of co-accused Raju Bind filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court concerned on 15.06.2021 and Sudama Bind and co-accused Raju Bind sustained injuries like as lacerated wound 4 x 0.5 cm on nose and mouth area, abrasion, wound contused swelling wound on various parts of the body and their medical examinations were conducted on 15.05.2021 in presence of Police Constable Pradeep Maurya. It is further contended that the prosecution has not explained the injuries of Sudama Bind and Raju Bind. It is further submitted that the incident took place in the night. The applicant has criminal history of one case being Case Crime No. 30 of 2016, under Section 323, 406, 504, 506 of I.P.C., in which final report has been submitted before the court concerned.

He has next argued that the applicant has no other previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. 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 submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. Learned counsel for the first informant submits that the bail application of co-accused Raju Bind, was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42364 of 2019 on 27.11.2021. It is further submitted that the injury report of Sudama Bind and Raju Bind are fake injury reprots. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

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

(a) The incident took place on 15.05.2021 at 08:00 P.M.;

(b) General role of committing marpit has been assigned to the applicant and other co-accused persons.

(c) No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the present applicant by the injured persons.

(d) After two months and one week Shimla sister of the first informant (injured) assigned the role to the applicant and other co-accused persons.

(e) Two persons namely Sudama Bind and co-accused Raju Bind sustained injuries like as lacerated wound on their bodies and cross-case is pending as complaint case filed by Sudama Bind father of co-accused Raju Bind against the first informant and other family members.

It is a 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, Udal Bind 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 cause, 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/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with 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 along-with 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 :- 11.5.2022

Ishan