Allahabad High Court
Kiran 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. - 15852 of 2022
Applicant :- Kiran
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mool Chandra 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.0172 of 2021, under Section 304. IPC, registered at Police Station Mungara Badshahpur, District Jaunpur.
3. According to the allegations levelled in the FIR, the incident is taken place on 01.09.2021 at about 12.30 P.M. when the grand daughter of informant was found dead in the rear portion of the house. Suspicion has been cast upon the applicant who has been indicated to be mentally handicapped.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her. It is further submitted that although the FIR alleges death having occasioned due to drowning but the post-mortem report clearly indicates cause of death has been ante-mortem injury on the head of deceased. It is submitted that there is no eye witness account of the incident and the applicant has been taken into custody only on the basis of suspicion. As such, it is submitted that there is neither any direct nor even circumstantial evidence as yet against the applicant who is in jail since 03.09.2021 and as yet evidence of only two prosecution witnesses have been completed.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the applicant was clearly seen coming from the site of incident and therefore suspicion has been cast upon her as being the perpetrator of 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 submission advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that there is no eye witness on account of the incident and the applicant has been taken into custody only on the basis of suspicion, there does not appear even to be last seen evidence against the applicant and as such, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is any direct of even circumstantial evidence against the applicant who is in jail since 03.09.2021 with the evidence of two prosecution witnesses having been completed.
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.
8. Let applicant, Kiran, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her 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 her 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 her, 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 her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 21.10.2022
Subodh/-
