Allahabad High Court
Rijwan vs State Of U.P. on 31 October, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38332 of 2022
Applicant :- Rijwan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Yashaswin Venugopal Bajpai,Atharva Dixit
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
1A. 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. 480 of 2019 under Sections 307, 326-A, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have occurred on 9th may, 2019 when the victim was found in an injured state and subsequently revealed that the applicant along with co-accused had assaulted her and poured acid on her face.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and in fact in her deposition before the court, the victim as P.W.1 has not supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile. Certified copy of the deposition of the victim is on record. It is further submitted that since during trial, the injury report can not be seen in isolation and the subsequent deposition of the victim clearly casts a reasonable doubt on the prosecution story, for initial version under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as contents of F.I.R. would be completely immaterial. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 3rd June, 2019 and as yet evidence of only three prosecution witnesses have been completed with six more remaining. It is further submitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that injury report clearly corroborates the allegations elvelled in the F.I.R. as well as statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. though it is admitted on the basis of record that the P.W.1 did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile.
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 although the applicant was named along with co-accused in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but during her deposition did not support the prosecution version and was therefore declared hostile. The applicant is in jail since 3rd June, 2019 and as yet only three prosecution witnesses have been examined with six more remaining and P.W.1 herself having been declared hostile.
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 Rijwan 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 :- 31.10.2022
Prabhat
