Allahabad High Court
Ravindra vs State Of U.P. on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44471 of 2022
Applicant :- Ravindra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kanhaiya Soni,Ekta Jaiswal,Shri Prakash Mishra
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.166 of 2022, under Sections 302,201,34 IPC, registered at Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal.
3. According to the FIR, the informant's son Vinod is said to have gone to a marriage alongwith the applicant and co-accused on 24.04.2022 but his dead body was subsequently found near the railway line on the next morning bearing grievous injuries on the head and body. Suspicion has been cast upon the applicant on the basis of last seen evidence.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and no motive whatsoever has been indicated upon the applicant for having committed the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the postmortem report clearly indicates about 100-120ml liquid present in the stomach of deceased from which smell of alcohol was being emitted and as such it is submitted that the deceased in fact got drunk in the marriage and suffered grievous injury on his own account leading to his death. It is submitted that the injuries particularly lacerated wound present on the left side of forehead and contusion on the chest clearly indicates and corroborates the same. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness account and even the last seen allegation against the applicant would be of no use since the applicant was said to have been last seen with the deceased going to the marriage ceremony and not returning therefrom. The applicant is in jail since 28.04.2022 but only charge-sheet has been filed as yet.
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 last seen evidence against him as well as recovery of a brick although the FSL report is not yet available.
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 submission advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that FIR against the applicant has been lodged on the basis of suspicion for being last seen with the deceased while going to the marriage. It also appears from the postmortem report that liquid emitting alcoholic smell was found in the stomach of deceased. The ante-mortem injuries said to have been cause of death as indicated hereinabove may or may not have occasioned due to the deceased being drunk and would necessarily be required to be proved during evidence in trial. The alleged recovery does not have any independent witness and the FSL report as yet is unavailable.
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, Ravindra, 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 :- 20.10.2022
Subodh/-
