Allahabad High Court
Jitendra vs State Of U.P. on 30 September, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28698 of 2022
Applicant :- Jitendra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary,Yogendra Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikash Chandra Tiwari
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Sri Yogendra Mishra and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 281 of 2021 at Police Station- Tronica City, District Ghaziabad under Sections 302, 34 IPC. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have been taken place on 19th May, 2021 at about 4-5 A.M. when the informant's son was found dead in the house of the applicant.
Sri Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased rushed into the house of the applicant in the small house of morning to save his life from a violent mob. The deceased had been grievously assaulted by the mob which was chasing him with a shouts of thief-thief. The applicant promptly called the police authorities for assistance by calling the emergency number. The police arrived on a timely basis and took the deceased to the hospital. The informant in a subsequent statement made two days after the incident introduced an aggravated version to implicate the applicant and deflect the attention from the conduct of his deceased son. Apart from the instant case the applicant does not have any criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 21.05.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R. Lastly it is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.
Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that the statement of informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has corroborated the contents of F.I.R. particularly the fact that deceased was found in the house of applicant.
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 inquest was at the instance of the applicant who is said to have been the person who inform the police with regard to incident. It also appears that the story as indicated in the F.I.R. has subsequently been improved in the statement of informant. Co-accused Smt. Shikha and Yuvraj have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.43006 of 2021and 11820 of 2022 respectively. The applicant is in jail since 21st May, 2021 and as yet trial is said to be still at the initial stage.
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 the applicant- Jitendra be released on bail in Case Crime No. 281 of 2021 at Police Station- Tronica City, District Ghaziabad under Sections 302, 34 IPC, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 30.9.2022
Prabhat
