Allahabad High Court
Lakhan Singh vs State Of U.P. on 23 May, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1440 of 2022
Applicant :- Lakhan Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kiran Tiwari,Mahesh Chandra Tiwari
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and Shri Munney Lal, learned A.G.A. for State.
2. The applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 741 of 2021, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station - Sikandara, District - Agra after rejection of his Bail Application, vide order dated 10.12.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Agra.
3. Applicant is related as an uncle of deceased against whom, he has earlier lodged the First Information Report under Sections 323, 324 IPC. Thereafter, deceased prepared a video clip and committed suicide. The contents of video clip are part of case diary and annexed along with application as Annexure No.2.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that contents of said video does not disclose any offence for abetment of suicide and it appears that he was under tremendous mental pressure and therefore, he committed suicide.
5. Shri Munnel Lal, learned A.G.A. submits that in the video clip, there are specific allegation against applicant, his wife and his son, therefore, it is a case of abetment of suicide.
LAW ON BAIL
6. A. "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail" (State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand @ Baliay; (1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535). Power to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC, is of wide amplitude. The Court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner (see Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh :(2002)3 SCC 598) Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P.:(2016)15 SCC 422).
B."The considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out." [Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118)]. "There is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, interalia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused" [State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21]. In Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and other, 2022 SCC Online SC 89, Supreme Court has observed that, "when the Accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also and when their presences has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual Accused is not significant and /or relevant." In Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency, (2022) 1 SCC 695, Supreme Court has observed that, "Once it is obvious that a timely trial would ot be possible and the Accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail."
C."....It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge." (Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors:( 2001) 4 SCC 280).
D."....It is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment...." (Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118) also (Ms. Y versus State of Rajasthan and Anr :2022 SCC OnLineSC 458).
E."....There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail. However, the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused." (Manoj Kumar Khokhar (2022)3 SCC501).
7. In the present case, the main evidence against applicant is the video clip which was viral and immediately thereafter, victim committed suicide.
8. I have perused the contents of manuscript of video which is part of case diary wherein deceased has specifically made allegation against the applicant, his wife and his son. He has been falsely implicated by them in criminal case and due to that, he was not able to appear in the examination for Army and also taking note of the judgment passed by this Court in Ravindra Pratap Shahi alias Pappu Shahi vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20591 of 2021), prima facie, it appears to be a case of abetment of suicide. I do not find any merit in the argument of learned counsel for applicant, as such, this application is hereby rejected. Considering the prayer of learned counsel for applicant, Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial, expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 23.5.2022
Rishabh
[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]
