Allahabad High Court
Sahab Singh vs State Of U.P. on 19 October, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29798 of 2022
Applicant :- Sahab Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Ojha,Shailesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Bind
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.205 of 2020 under Sections 302, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Shamshabad, District Farrukhabad.
3. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have occurred on 09.06.2020 when the informant's father was resting in the field. It is alleged that the applicant who is said to be in inimical terms with family members of the deceased, reached the spot and set fire to him after pouring petrol upon him. It is submitted that the deceased tried to douse the fire by jumping into a water body and was thereafter taken to hospital where he subsequently passed away. It is stated in the F.I.R. that the deceased was able to recognise the applicant as the main perpetrator of the crime. It is stated that there is no previous criminal history of applicant.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged after about a month of the incident without any cogent explanation for the same and clearly indicates deliberation and tutoring. It is also submitted that there is no eye witness account of the incident nor is there any dying declaration and therefore as of now there is no credible evidence whereby it can be said that the applicant has been positively identified as perpetrator of the crime. It has also been submitted that there is no statement of the informant or any other witness that the deceased prior to passing away has identified the applicant.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with submission that motive is clearly discernible since the applicant was in inimical terms with the deceased and his family. It is submitted that upon shouting of the deceased for help, various persons from the Village had gathered at the spot and clearly saw applicant running away from the site of the incident shouting that he had set fire to the deceased.
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 there is no eye witness account of the incident; the F.I.R. clearly has been lodged on 04.07.2020 although the incident is said to have taken place on 09.06.2020 without any cogent explanation for such delay; the relevant portion of case diary indicates that neither any petrol bottle nor any match box was obtained from the site of the incident; there also does not appear to be any dying declaration of the deceased and at this stage, there does not appear to be any credible evidence positively identifying the applicant as the main perpetrator of the crime; the applicant is in jail since 06.11.2020 and as yet evidence of P.W.1 is ongoing although there are 17 witnesses indicated in the charge sheet, 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 Sahab 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 :- 19.10.2022
kvg/-
