Allahabad High Court
Sukha vs State Of U.P. on 4 July, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105092
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44890 of 2023
Applicant :- Sukha
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Danish,Saif Ali Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Mohammad Danish, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned AGA for State.
2. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant- Sukha seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.11 of 2020 under Sections 304, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station - Hazratnagar Garhi, District Moradabad during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No.1103 of 2022 (State Vs. Chand @ Chanda and others) now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Moradabad.
3. The first bail application of applicant- Sukha was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 05.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29604 of 2021 (Chand @ Chanda Vs. State of U.P.) along with connected Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.29661 of 2021 and 10423 of 2022. For ready reference, the order dated 05.05.2022 is reproduced hereinbelow:
"Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for applicant- Chand @ Chanda, Sukha and Imran, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Sami Ullah Khan, learned counsel for first informant.
These applications for bail have been filed by applicants-Chand @ Chanda, Sukha and Imran, seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2020, under sections 304, 323, 504 IPC Police Section Hazaratnagar Garhi, District Moradabad during the pendency of trial.
Perused the record.
Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 19.1.2020, a belated F.I.R. dated 24.1.2020 was lodged by first informant Shareef Ahmad (father of deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No. 11 of 2020, under sections 304, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station- Hazaratnagar Garhi, District Moradabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely, Chand, Sukha, Ikrar and Imran have been nominated as named accused.
The gravamen of the allegations made in aforesaid F.I.R. is to the effect that on the fateful day on 19.1.2020, named accused assaulted Mohd. Jan and Rehana, son of first informant and daughter-in-law of first informant on account of which they sustained injuries.
Subsequent to aforesaid F.I.R. Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned Case Crime Number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of Investigation, injured Mohd. Jan died on 30.1.2020. Thereafter the post mortem of body of deceased was conducted on 31.1.2020. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon, cause of death of deceased was Cranio-cerebral damage produced by blunt force impact. The autopsy surgeon found following antemortem injuries on the body of deceased:
1. Black scabbed abrasion of size 1 cm x 1 cm presetn over right side of forehead, situatted 1 cm above right eyebrow and 10 cm away from midline. Scabs were loose and easily removable.
2. Black scabbed abrasion of size 1 cm x 1 cm present over right side back of head, situated 3 cm above the level of external occipital protuberance and 7 cm away midline. Scabs were loose and easily removable.
Investigating Officer examined the first informant and the following witnesses namely, Dr. A.K. Shital, Dr. Shatish Kumar Raman, Dr. Narendra Kumar, Mohd. Nabi, Smt. Rihana, Shri Jarif, Chand, Latif, Bhure, Furkan under section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him during course of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet dated 24.3.2020, whereby all the named accused have been charge sheeted under sections 304, 323, 504 IPC.
At the very outset Mr. Sami Ullah Khan, learned counsel for first informant submits that bail application of co-accused Iqrar has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 6.10.2020, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26103 of 2020 (Iqrar Vs. State of U.P). For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under;
Heard Sri Aadil Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shamiullah Khan, learned counsel for the complainant, Km. Meena, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant alongwith three other co-accused are involved in the present case and general role for assaulting the deceased by hard and blunt object has been assigned to all the accused persons and the wife of the deceased minor injuries on person. They have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is in jail since 3.2.2020.
Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant along with three other co-accused have mercilessly beaten the deceased, who received two injuries on his head and parietal bone of the deceased was found fractured and as per the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is due to cranio cerebral damage produced by blunt force impact and all injuries are ante mortem in nature and produced by blunt force object, which shows that the applicant has actively participated in the incident.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, I find no good ground for grant of bail to the applicant-Iqrar involved in Case Crime No.11 of 2020, under Sections 304, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Hazratnagar Garhi, District Moradabad.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage.
Applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the trial Court concerned for its compliance.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that though applicants are named as well as charge sheeted accused but they are innocent Applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. A neighbourhood feude resulted in a brawl. According to learned counsel for applicants, the occurrence in question has occurred on the spur of moment. There is no premeditative mind of applicants for committing the crime in question. Deceased has sustained injuries. However, from the perusal of F.I.R. it is explicitly clear that the author of fatal injury sustained by deceased has not been mentioned/specified in the F.I.R. It is thus urged that all the accused have been assigned general and common role. It is next contended that applicants are men of clean antecedents inasmuch as they have no criminal history to their credit except the present one. Applicants are in jail since 19.2.2020. As such, they have undergone more than two years and two months of incarceration. In case, applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that applicants are named as well as charge sheeted accused, and therefore they do not deserve any indulgence by this Court. It is then contended that all the ante-mortem injuries which were sustained by deceased have been caused by named accused including present applicants. They further submit that criminality committed by named accused are interlinked and intertwined. Therefore, same cannot be separated or segregated. As such, applicants are not liable to be released on bail. In support of above, learned A.G.A. has placed reliance upon judgement of Supreme Court in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2016 (15) SCC 422.
Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicants and accusation made but without making any comment on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any good or justifiable ground to enlarge the applicants on bail.
Applications fails and are liable to be rejected.
They are accordingly rejected."
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that subsequent to the above order dated 05.05.2022, co-accused Iqrar has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 08.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.33542 of 2023 (Iqrar Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinebelow:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Iqrar, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2020, under Sections 304,323,504 IPC Police Station Hazratnagar Garhi, District- Moradabad, during pendency of trial.
This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order order dated 6.10.2020, which is not available.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that trial has commenced. The injured Rehana Begum has been examined before the trial court as P.W.2, wherein she has not supported the prosecution case but informant has supported the prosecution case. Till date only two prosecution witnesses out of 27 have been examined. The applicant is in jail since 3.2.2020 and has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
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; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the 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; 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 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.
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
4. That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any 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 or to any police officer;
5. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.
6. 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his 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.
The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period one year.
The registrar(Compliance)of this court is directed to communicate this order to the trial court for compliance within ten days."
5. Learned counsel for applicant fairly submits that injured Rehana Begum deposed before court below as PW-2 but has not identified the weapon held by each of the named and charge-sheeted accused. He therefore submits that co-accused Iqrar has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that since no such evidence has emerged on record on the basis of which the case of the present applicant could be so distinguished so as to deny him bail, therefore, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity as well as for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail order of co-accused Iqrar.
6. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 19.02.2020. As such applicant has undergone almost 5 years of incarceration. It is also contended that the charge-sheet/police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution stands crystalized. However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. It is also contended that the first informant Sharif Ahmed has already deposed before court below as PW-1, therefore, in that circumstance if the applicant is enlarged on bail then it cannot be said that applicant shall hamper the course of trial or shall terrorize the witnesses. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, then in that eventuality he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
7. Per contra, the learned AGA representing State has vehementally opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named and charge-sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Criminality alleged to have been committed by applicant and other co-accused is joint and common. As such the case of the present applicant cannot be so distinguished so as to enlarge him on bail. In view of the nature and gravity of offence committed by applicant along with co-accused and the period of punishment provided for such an offence, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant at this stage. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned AGA for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made, this Court finds that applicant is a named and charge-sheeted accused, similarly situate co-accused Iqrar has already been granted bail, the injured Rehana Begum has deposed before court below as PW-2, however, she could not specify the manner of occurrence, the weapon in the hands of each of the accused could not be stated by her, in view of above, the case of present applicant is prima facie similar to that of bailed out co-accused Iqrar and therefore in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the order of bailed out co-accused, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The first informant Sharif Ahmed has already deposed before court below as PW-1. Once the statements of first informant and injured PW-2 have been recorded then in that eventuality in case the applicant is enlarged on bail then it cannot be said that applicant shall terrorize the witnesses or hamper the course of trial. The charge-sheet/police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution stands crystalized yet in spite of above, the learned AGA could not point out any such incriminating circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgment of Supreme Court in case ofSumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), the clean antecedents of applicant as he has no criminal history to his credit, the period of incarceration undergone inasmuch applicant has undergone more than 5 years of sentence which is almost half of the minimum sentence provided for offence under Section 304 IPC, therefore, considering the above and irrespective of the objections raised by the learned AGA in opposition to this application for bail, applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.
9. In view of the discussion made above, the present repeat application for bail thus succeeds and is liable to be allowed.
10. It is accordingly allowed.
11. Let applicant- Sukha, involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) 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 applicant fails 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.
(iv) 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.
Order Date :- 4.7.2025/R.S. Tiwari
