Allahabad High Court
Yuvraj Singh @ Raj Singh vs State Of U.P. on 1 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35090 of 2022
Applicant :- Yuvraj Singh @ Raj Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard 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.83 of 2021, under Sections 302,34 IPC, registered at Police Station Gagha, District Gorakhpur.
3. As per contents of FIR, the informant's brother was attacked by unknown persons on 10.03.2021 due to which he suffered fire arm injuries and passed away. FIR has been lodged against unknown persons.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and is neither named in the FIR nor is there any allegation against him. It is submitted that the applicant has apprehended only on the basis of alleged information received by police informer. It is submitted that recovery of a pistol has been alleged at the instance of applicant but the same is denied. Even otherwise, it is submitted that alleged recovery does not have any independent witness and the ballistics have not been matched. It is also submitted that applicant is in jail since 07.05.2021 without trial having yet commenced and co-accused Mragendra Singh @ Sunny Singh has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18704 of 2022 primarily on the same ground. It is submitted that as yet there is neither any direct or any circumstantial evidence against the applicant who has been the victim only on account of previous criminal history which has been explained.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the applicant has been apprehended on the basis of information and upon recovery of pistol at the instance of applicant and co-accused.
6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that FIR has been lodged against unknown persons in which the applicant has not been indicated as having any role and taking into custody only on the basis of alleged information received from a police informer. The recovery as alleged does not have any independent witness. The ballistic report is also not on record. As yet, it appears that there is no direct or even circumstantial evidence against the applicant who is in jail since 07.05.2021. The trial not yet having commenced. Co-accused,namely, Mragendra Singh @ Sunny Singh has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate bench of this Court as indicated hereinabove.
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. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Yuvraj Singh @ Raj Singh, 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 :- 1.11.2022
Subodh/-
