Allahabad High Court
Radha Kishan 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. - 44320 of 2022
Applicant :- Radha Kishan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh
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.242 of 2022 under Sections 302, 120-B I.PC., P.S. Jainth, District Mathura.
3. According to first information report, the incident is taken place on 17.06.2022 when the named accused are said to have murdered mother of informant.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and he is not even named in the F.I.R. It is submitted that even in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant has not named the applicant as perpetrator of the crime and the applicant in fact has been roped in only on the basis of statement given by one Vijendra who is said to have heard the applicant and two others hatching the conspiracy. It is submitted that except for the aforesaid statement, there is no other direct or even circumstantial evidence linking the applicant with the alleged crime. It is further submitted that even as per the statement of said Vijendra, there is no explanation as to why the said person did not inform the family members of deceased. It is submitted that it was only on the basis of said statement that the named accused have been exonerated in the charge sheet which has been filed against applicant and two other persons.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that it was during course of investigation that the name of applicant cropped up as a co-perpetrator of the crime.
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 applicant has not been named either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has been introduced only as per statement of one Vijendra; at this stage, there does not appear to be any direct or even circumstantial evidence against applicant linking him to the crime, 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 Radha Kishan, 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
kvg/-
