Allahabad High Court
Ramchandra vs State Of U.P. on 14 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32125 of 2022
Applicant :- Ramchandra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mehrotra,Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Singh
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. No-one has appeared on behalf of informant.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0071 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C, Police Station Ahraula, District- Azamgarh.
3. First information report was lodged alleging the offence of murder against unknown accused. The death of the deceased took place on account of strangulation of his neck and thereafter throwing his dead body in the pond. The informant approached the police earlier but his first information report was not lodged hence he approached the Scheduled Caste Commission, Delhi and on its intervention his first information report was lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. He is cousin of the deceased and about 10-15 years ago litigation took place between them regarding a small piece of land but it was settled. Litigations got dismissed for want of prosecution. The police was initially not getting the post mortem of the deceased conducted but on the insistence of the applicant and other family members of deceased the same was conducted. The applicant was falsely implicated by the Investigating Officer of the police since he was instrumental in getting the post mortem of the deceased conducted. The applicant along with his brother were falsely implicated and arrested. Charge-sheet has already been submitted against the applicant. There is inordinate delay in lodging of the first information report. He is in jail since 17.05.2022.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that Smt. Jugita Devi, mother of the deceased, has clearly stated before the investigating officer that the deceased, her son Sudama, used to consume liquor along with the applicant. On the date of incident at about 8.00 p.m. a call came on her mobile phone, which was picked-up by her son, Sudama. He left the house informing that co-accused Mool Chand and Applicant Ram Chandra are calling him for eating and drinking together. She has stated that on the next date body of her son was recovered. She suspects that the applicant and his brother Mool Chand called him and caused his death by beating. She also informed the phone number of applicant. He has submitted that it is clear that the deceased went to the applicant and his brother on their calling and later his dead body was recovered. He has pointed out to the statement of Smt. Sheela Devi, whose husband, Ramesh, had also gone to consume liquor with the deceased, applicant and his brother.It has been further submitted that applicant has already confessed before one Raj Narayan Singh, who is therefore an independent witness.
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. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that applicant has been implicated in this case on the basis of statement of Smt. Jugita Devi, mother of the deceased, Sudama. She stated that a phone call came on her mobile no.8953596629. It is a case of circumstantial evidence collected by the investigating officer. There is no eye witness or definite evidence in the form of CDR details clearly implicating the applicant. Co-accused Mool Chand has been admitted to bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Application no.32072 of 2022. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Ramchandra, 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 :- 14.11.2022
kvg/-
