Allahabad High Court
Kande Munda And Another 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. - 44425 of 2022
Applicant :- Kande Munda And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kedar Nath Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, 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. 413 of 2020 under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 IPC, P.S. Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria.
3. As per contents of FIR, the informant's brother is said to have been murdered by the applicants and co-accused.
4. Learned counsel for applicants submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against them only on account of the fact that they were easy scapegoats. It is submitted that the F.I.R. as well as the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. merely levelles allegations of previous enmity upon the applicants. It is submitted that even the post mortem of the deceased was conducted as an unknown and no missing person's report was lodged prior to lodging of the F.I.R. which otherwise is highly belated without any plausible explanation. It is submitted that the applicants are in jail since 9th November, 2020.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that as per post mortem report, the deceased was decapitated. It is further submitted that it was at the instance of the applicants that the instruments used in the murder were recovered although F.S.L. report is not yet available.
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 the F.I.R. against the applicants have been lodged only on the basis of suspicion, which even otherwise is highly belated without any cogent explanation for the same. At this stage except for the alleged recovery for which even otherwise there is no independent witness, there does not appear to be any credible evidence against the applicants who are in jail since 9th November, 2020.
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 applicants Kande Munda and Mando Munda 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
Prabhat
