Arvind Singh Bundela vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 19108 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28639 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Arvind Singh Bundela
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Namit Kumar Sharma,Ajeet Kumar Chaurasiya,Rajshekhar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Singh,Vinay Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Counter affidavits filed today in Court by learned AGA and learned counsel for informant are taken on record.

1A. Heard Mr. A.K. Upadhyay and Mr. Rajshekhar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.08 of 2022, under Section 304(1), 188 IPC, registered at Police Station Narahat, District Lalitpur.

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant alongwith co-accused have taken place on 20.01.2022 when the deceased Kaushalendra Singh brother of informant is said to have been fired upon by the applicant and co-accused due to which he passed away.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that although specific role of firing has been attributed to the applicant and is corroborated by statement of first informant recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. but first informant is not an eye witness and indicates FIR being lodged upon information being received from his younger son Shivam. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the statement of said Shivam to submit that he also was not an eye witness and in his statement states that he came to the site of incident after firing had already taken place. It is further submitted that another eye witness Veerendra Sahariya in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C states that deceased died due to accidental fire when the applicant was keeping his armed rifle in his vehicle. It is on basis of said statement that charge-sheet has been filed under section 304 IPC. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the ballistic report brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit to submit that the bullet does not match the weapon from which applicant allegedly fired upon the deceased. It is further submitted that applicant is under custody since 26.01.2022 without even charges having been framed.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with the submission that not only as per FIR but even as per statement of eye witnesses, a clear and specific role has been attributed to the applicant of having fired upon the deceased due to which he passed away and postmortem report also indicates fire arm injury as the cause of death.

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 parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that FIR has been lodged as per information derived from younger son of the informant Shivam who however in his statement has clearly said that he reached the spot after firing had taken place. Charge-sheet has been filed under section 304 IPC on the basis of other alleged eye witness Veerendra Sahariya. Ballistic report brought on record today by means of counter affidavit filed by learned AGA however indicates that the ballistic may not match the bullet recovered with the fired arm allegedly used by the applicant who is in jail since 26.01.2022 with trial not yet having commenced. Previous criminal history has already been explained in the bail application itself.

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, Arvind Singh Bundela, 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 :- 29.11.2022

Subodh/-