Allahabad High Court
Pushpendra vs State Of U.P. on 24 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12427 of 2022
Applicant :- Pushpendra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kumar,Rajeev Goswami
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. 1081 of 2021 under Section 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Vrindawan,District Mathura.
3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant and co-accused are said to have entered into an alteration with the deceased Siddhu on 2nd December, 2021 whereafter the dead body was discovered in the river on the next day.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which could be evident from the fact that there is no eye witness account of the alleged incident and F.I.R. has been lodged only on the basis of information allegedly derived by the informant. It is further submitted that even as per subsequent statement of informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation of being an eye witness and although an altercation is said to have taken place in the residence of deceased but as per recovery memo, blood was recovered only from the river bank. It is further submitted that statement of other witnesses are also in variance with the recovery memo. It is submitted that there was no recovery effected from the applicant of any weapon allegedly used in the incident since as per post mortem report, death has occasioned by blow from a hard and blunt object in the occipital region. It is submitted that applicant is in jail since 4th December, 2021 with trial only at the inception.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that applicant along with co-accused were last seen having an altercation with the deceased soon whereafter the dead body was discovered in the river.
6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that F.I.R. against the applicant has been lodged on the basis of suspicion and as per last seen, there does not appear to be any eye witness account of the incident. The statement of witnesses appear to be in variation with the recovery memo with regard to place of incident. The evidence pertaining to last seen also is a weak evidence ad requires corroboration at the stage of trial. At this stage, there does not appear to be any direct evidence against the applicant who is in jail since 4th December, 2021 with trial only at the inception.
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 Pushpendra 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 :- 24.11.2022
Prabhat
