Allahabad High Court
Ramveer vs State Of U.P. on 21 October, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21700 of 2022
Applicant :- Ramveer
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Shukla,Vipul Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alam Ara,Gulhuma,Imran Khan
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of informant is taken on record.
1A.Heard Mr. Radhey Shyam Shukla learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 492 of 2021, under Sections 307, 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Jaitipur, District Shahjahanpur.
3. As per the FIR allegation four persons including the applicant were trying to push the cattles in the field of informant, which was objected to by him along with his brother. A fight ensued between them and after sometime the applicant along with three others namely applicant Ramveer, Pradeep and Ravindra, armed with firearm, came and started indiscriminately firing in which the brother-in-law of informant, who was married about 25 days back, came out and he was hit by the bullet on account of which he died. The postmortem report is on record which contains injury as a oval shaped wound of size 2.5 x 2cm x 8cm distal of left nipple margin abraded about 0.2 cm around margin density been coloured and cause of death is ante-mortem firearm injury. A 315 bore country made pistol (Tamancha) has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant and he has been arrested.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that although as per F.I.R. role of firing has been assigned to the applicant as well as co-accused but as per statements of independent witnesses as well as wife of deceased, the role of firing fatal shot is clearly upon the co-accused Satyaveer and not upon the applicant. It is submitted that even as per the recovery memo, two local fire arms having .315 bore were recovered at the instance of applicant and co-accused Satyaveer in which it was found that the fire arm of the applicant had a live undischarged cartridge whereas the fire arm pertaining to co-accused Satyaveer had a empty cartridge blocked in the barrel itself which clearly indicates that single fatal fire arm injury is clearly attributable to co-accused Satyaveer who is the author of the fatal injury. It has been further submitted that bail application of co-accused Satyaveer has been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20315 of 2022 on this very ground.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that role of firing has clearly been attributed not only to the said Satyaveer but also upon the informant who is clearly complicit in the allegations levelled in the F.I.R.
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 it is not in dispute that the injury which has resulted in death of the deceased has been caused by a firearm which apparently includes a firearm injury caused by .315 bore country made pistol (Tamancha). It has come in evidence that on the pointing out of Ramveer and Satyaveer two .315 bore country made pistol (Tamancha) have been recovered from the spot. Country made pistol recovered from Ramveer shows that empty cartridge was blocked in the barrel itself. The specific statement exists of the independent witnesses assigning the role of firing to Satyaveer resulting in death of the deceased. The firearm recovered from the Satyaveer also matches the injury caused to the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 23rd December, 2021 and as yet it has been submitted that evidence has not yet started.
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 applicant Ramveer 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 :- 21.10.2022
Prabhat
