Allahabad High Court
Rajkumar 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. - 42375 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajkumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhaskar Bhadra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 311 of 2022, under Section 306 I.P.C., P.S. Aonla, District Bareilly.
As per contents of FIR, allegation has been levelled against the applicant along with co-accused that they used to harass the brother of informant, Narveer Singh on the basis of certain photograph which was embarrassing to him. It is stated that harassment was also due to earlier political rivalry between the deceased, applicant and co-accused. The F.I.R. states that it was as a result of such harassment that the deceased committed suicide.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case for abetment to deceased to commit suicide by hanging from a tree. As per allegation in the F.I.R. a photograph of deceased was taken with a lady named as Mithilesh w/o Raju and in relation to that the deceased was being harassed by this applicant with four co-accused persons which was the reason for committing suicide.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. Further submitted that no injury was caused by applicant to the deceased. There is no other evidence on record to show that deceased was subjected to harassment as aforesaid but applicant has been roped in this case on account of previous enmity. It is also submitted that F.I.R. was lodged after delay of eight days without any explanation thereto with ulterior motive. He is languishing in jail since 14.7.2022, having no criminal antecendents and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.
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 although allegations of abetment have been made against the applicant and co-accused of having caused harassment of the deceased on the basis of a photograph but as per instructions obtained by learned A.G.A., the said photograph in fact was provided by informant himself and was not recovered from the applicant. A case of previous political enmity is also clearly made out not only from the F.I.R. but also statement of informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Belated lodging of F.I.R. also doe s not have any plausible explanation. Co-accused Murari and Raju having similar roles in the matter have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39901 of 2022 and 39888 of 2022 respectively.
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."
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.
Accordingly bail application is allowed.
Let applicant Rajkumar 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:-
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 21.10.2022
Prabhat
