Allahabad High Court
Titu @ Arun Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18691 of 2019
Applicant :- Titu @ Arun Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sarveshwar Singh,Manoj Kumar Yadav,Rudra Pratap Pandey,Shivam Yadav,Vidhu Bhushan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Kuldeep Singh Yadav learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This second bail application has been filed with regard to S.T. No. 433 of 2016, Case Crime No. 138 of 2016, under Sections 307, 302 IPC, P.S. Kurra, District Mainpuri.
3. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 12th October, 2017 by His Lordship Hon'ble Ravindra Nath kakkar J. who has since demitted office and therefore this case is listed before this Court as per roster.
4. As per contents of FIR, the applicant along with co-accused is said to have fired upon family members of informant resulting in fatality of one person and grievous injuries upon others.
5. Learned cousnel for applicant submits that subsequent to the earlier rejection order, evidences of four witnesses of fact have already been completed and co-accused Pushpendra Singh and Raju alias Pradeep have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court in bail application Nos. 36246 of 2018 and 42330 of 2018 respectively. It is submitted that there are total number of 18 witnesses and as yet only evidence of witnesses of fact has been completed. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 25th October, 2016 and there is no hope of any early conclusion to the trial. It is submitted that the enlargement of co-accused indicated herein above having the same role as the applicant by subsequent bail orders is a factor which is relevant as a fresh ground for consideration of second bail application.
6. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State as well as learned cousnel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that first bail application of applicant has been rejected on cogent grounds as well as merits. However it is not denied that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail subsequently.
7. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, the scope of consideration of second bail application has already been enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh reported in (2002)3 SCC 598 holding that in regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent application for bail should be granted.
8. Upon applicability of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that subsequent to rejection of first bail of the applicant, co-accused Pushpendra Singh and Raju alias Pradeep have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court. The statement of witnesses of fact are said to be over but there are as yet a number of prosecution witnesses remaining to be examined and as such there does not appear to be any hope of any early conclusion to the trial. The applicant has already suffered incarceration for about 6 years as an under trial.
9. 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."
10. 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.
11. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
12. Let applicant Titu @ Arun Kumar 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 :- 13.9.2022
Prabhat
