Allahabad High Court
Neetu @ Rajendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 February, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved On:- 06.02.2023
Delivered On:- 13.02.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23633 of 2022
Applicant :- Neetu @ Rajendra Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Singh Rajput,Gaurav Kakkar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ray Sahab Yadav
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Shri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for applicant; learned counsel for informant and learned AGA for State.
2. There is allegation in the FIR that the applicant along with three co-accused with common intention had beaten the son of the informant by farsa, kulhadi and lathi-danda and after he became unconscious, they ran away. Subsequently son of the informant died in the hospital.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the incident wherein the dispute which took place on 11.11.2021, son of the informant died and Ram Singh (father of the applicant) sustained serious injuries on his skull, fracture of occipital bone and was hospitalized for about 25 days. There is no explanation of the injury caused to the father of the applicant by the informant side. Initially, four persons were implicated in this case but charge sheet has been submitted against two persons only. From the inquest report, it appears that free fight took place between the parties wherein both the sides suffered injuries. Ramesh, brother of informant, took, Ram Singh to the hospital and had signed the consent letter before the doctor. The weapon recovered are planted and there is no F.S.L report regarding the use of the same. The applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 15.12.2021. The version in the FIR is not reliable. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1976 (4) SCC 394 and Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2010 (2) SCC 333.
4. Counsel for the informant has pointed out to the ante-mortem injury of the deceased and the recovery of the weapons. He has submitted that the other side has also filed cross version of the incident by way of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., wherein also the injury of the informant side has not been explained. He has not submitted any reply to the arguments of the counsel for the applicant regarding the non-explanation of the injury suffered by Ram Singh, father of the applicant.
5. He has pointed out the statement of Ram Singh recorded by the investigating officer which states that the injury suffered by him were caused by his own son.
6. Counsel for the applicant has rejoined and has submitted that the investigating officer has falsely recorded the statement of Ram Singh that the injuries suffered by Ram Singh were from his own son when he was causing injuries to the deceased.
7. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicants being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant, Neetu @ Rajendra Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 183 of 2021, under Section 304 IPC, Police Station- Samthar, District- Jhansi, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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 applicants fail 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.
(v) 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.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 13.02.2023
Rohit
