Allahabad High Court
Saleem vs State Of U.P. on 11 October, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196314
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42354 of 2023
Applicant :- Saleem
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Mohan Kant Baghel,Noor Muhammad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
There is allegation in the first information report that the son of the informant aged about 13 years had gone to ease himself and running in the field but his dead body was recovered from the field of co-accused, Arvind. It was further alleged that the deceased had suffered injury by electrocution on his neck and leg. Applicant is servant of co-accused, Arvind, had put live electricity wires around his corn field. The deceased came in touch with the such electric wire and died by way of electrocution .
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of accidental nature. Applicant had put electric wires around his agricultural field to save his crops from the stray cattle but accidentally deceased came in contact with the same and died. There was no intention on the part of the applicant to cause death of the deceased. He is in jail since 19.07.2023 and is poor person working as labourer in the field of the co-accused, Arvind, to earn livelihood.
Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has pointed out the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer and has submitted that the deceased suffered electric shock in the field of the co-accused, Arvind. His dead body was recovered from the field of Arvind away from the electric wire. He has further submitted instead of taking the deceased to the hospital or to the doctor, when he was crying for help, he was thrown out in other field and not helped by the applicant or the co-accused, Arvind.
Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.
After hearing the rival submissions of the parties, this court finds that the death from electrocution / electric burn take place suddenly and the allegation that the deceased was in need of help and the applicant and co-accused did not helped him is not supported by any evidence on record in the form of any statement of any witness recorded by the Investigating Officer. The deceased has suffered superficial to deep electric burns on neck, arm and thigh. It is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Applicant does not appears any other criminal history to his credit.
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; applicant being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and 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 applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Saleem, involved in Case Crime No.263 of 2023, under Section 304 I.P.C, Police Station Narki, District- Firozabad 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 misuse 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, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 11.10.2023
SS
