Allahabad High Court
Ram Kailash And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 15 September, 2022
Bench: Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29196 of 2022
Applicant :- Ram Kailash And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Shri S.K. Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for applicants, Shri D.K. Srivastava, the learned AGA appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 74 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 336, 353 & 307 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Jagner, District Agra.
3. The FIR has been registered by police alleging that two groups of people entered into an altercation on 14.05.2022 and they attacked one another with rods/sticks and bricks etc. resulting in injuries to both sides. It has been stated that due to the aforesaid incident, an atmosphere of terror was created in the village. The applicants are named in the FIR alongwith various other persons.
4. The learned counsel for applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the reading of the FIR will indicate that only a general role has been assigned to all the persons present on the site. It is submitted that the applicants in fact were innocent by standers and were not involved in the altercation, which would be evident from the fact that they have not suffered any injuries. It is submitted that even otherwise, injuries suffered by the concerned persons are simple in nature and would not be within the ambit of Section 307 IPC. It is next submitted that applicants have no previous criminal history and they are in jail since 16.05.2022.
5. The learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission the contents of FIR clearly indicate that altercation had taken place between two groups of persons which has resulted in injuries.
6. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie, subject to further evidence being led in trial, general role has been assigned to more than 30 persons who are said to have been involved in the altercation ensued which resulted in injuries, as such, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case.
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 no t 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 applicants 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 applicants- Ram Kailash, Ram Gopal @ Bhuri and Nepal involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 15.9.2022
pks
