Preetam Singh And Another vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 24923 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178882
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38409 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Preetam Singh And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Shukla,Vishakha Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Anurag Shukla, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

Perused the record.

This bail application has been filed by the applicants Preetam Singh and Rahul seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 140 of 2023, under Section 304 IPC, P.S. Ikdil, District Etawah during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for applicants contends that though applicants are named as well as charge sheeted accused, yet they are liable to be enlarged on bail. With reference to the material on record, he submits that occurrence giving rise to the present criminal proceedings occurred on 9.3.2023 at Etawah. Thereafter, the injured went to Jammu. He was hospitalized on 19.3.2023. He ultimately died on 24.3.2023. In the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, the deceased died on account of cardiac arrest as well as other injuries sustained by him. General role has been assigned to all the accused for causing injuries on the body of the deceased. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants contends case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of co-accused Bablu, who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 24.8.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37358 of 2023. For ready reference, the said order is reproduced herein under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

There is allegation against the applicant of committing offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is alleged in the first information report that the deceased working in Savitri Cold Storage at Etawah. He was resident of Jammu, where he suffered fever and examined by the Doctor and he was found normal. On 16.03.2023 N.C.C.T. Scan of whole abdomen of deceased was conducted at Bheem Rao Ambedkar Combined Hospital, Etawah and no abnormality was found. Thereafter he went back to Jammu. He died at Jammu on 24.03.2023. Doctor at Jammu found that his Kidney and Liver were hemorrhagic, which can be caused due to severe beating and clotting was also found in his head but at Etawah he was perfectly alright. After he left Etawah what happened is not known. The applicant remained at Etawah and did not accompanied the deceased to Jammu. Deceased died due to cardio respiratory arrest. Applicant is in jail since 12.07.2023.

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.

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, Bablu, involved in Case Crime No.140 of 2023, under Section 304 I.P.C, Police Station Ikdil, District- Etawah 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. "

Learned counsel for applicants contends that the role of present applicants and co-accused is similar and identical. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which the case of present applicant could be so distinguished from other co-accused Bablu so as to deny bail to the present applicant. He, therefore, submits that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail order of co-accused Bablu, applicants are also liable to be enlarged on bail.

Even otherwise, applicants are men of clean antecedents having no criminal history to their credit except the present one. Applicants are in jail since 04.07.2023. As such, they have undergone more than 1 month of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. has already been submitted against applicants, as such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicants now stands crystallized. Upto this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicants during the pendency of trial. It is thus contended that applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He contends that since the applicants are named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record at this stage.

Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for state, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact similarly situate and circumstanced co-accused Bablu has already been enlarged on bail, there is nothing on record to distinguish the case of present applicants with that of co-accused Bablu, the clean antecedents of applicants, the period of incarceration undergone, the police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. has already been submitted against applicant, as such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicants stands crystallized, however, in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicants during the pendency of trial, the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373, (paragraph 5), the clean antecedents of applicants, the period of incarceration undergone, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicants Preetam Singh and Rahul involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two heavy 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 will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicants 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 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 them in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 15.9.2023

HSM