Allahabad High Court
Pradumn Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 17 August, 2023
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:166065 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33517 of 2023 Applicant :- Pradumn Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manindra Mohan Pandey,Husna Bano Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicant in Court today is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Manindra Mohan Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Pradumn Kumar seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.373 of 2022, under Sections 147, 149, 304, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nagar, District Basti, during the pendency of trial.
Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 23.12.2022, a delayed F.I.R. dated 24.12.2022 was lodged by first informant, namely, Dharm Kumar Yadav (son of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No.0373 of 2022, under Sections 147, 149, 504, 304 IPC, Police Station Nagar, District Basti. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons, namely, Sheshnath Yadav, Gangaram Yadav, Ram Belash Yadav, Pradumn and Abhimanyu have been nominated as named accused.
The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused with a common object formed an unlawful assembly and thereafter armed with Lathi/Danda assaulted the father of the first informant on account of which he sustained grievous injury. Thereafter, the father of the first informant was taken to the hospital from where he was referred to the Medical College, Gorakhpur but he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him while undergoing treatment.
After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged on 24.12.2022, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII CrPC. The inquest (Panchayatnama) of the deceased was conducted. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (Panch witnesses), nature of death of the deceased was characterized as homicidal. Subsequent to above, the post-mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. The autopsy surgeon who conducted post-mortem of body of the deceased, found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased :-
"Ante-mortem Injuries :-
1. C/S of size 09 x 04 cm of head to ocipcital region, 06 cm above L ear, on cutting under clotted present bone fracture.
2. L/W of size 03 cm long stick present Lt side of head - interior region of head on cutting bone fracture clotted present."
In the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, the cause of death of the deceased was opined as Coma as a result of ante-mortem injuries.
During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. Second statement (Bayan Mazeed) of the first informant was also recorded wherein specific role has been assigned to co-accused Pradumn Kumar (applicant herein) and Sheshnath Yadav. On the basis of above and other material collected by the Investigating Officer, he came to the conclusion that complicity of all the named accused is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the charge-sheet dated 11.03.2023, whereby all the named accused have been charge-sheeted.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. He further submits that co-accused Abhimanyu has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19847 of 2023 (Abhimanyu Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein-under :-
"1. Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel has filed his power on behalf of the informant today in the Court, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that five accused persons have been alleged to have assaulted the deceased leveling general allegations against them. He further submits that in the Majeed statement of the informant, specific role has been assigned to co-accused Pradyumn Yadav and Sheshnath. He further submits that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant and that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village parti bandi. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 25.12.2022, having no criminal history.
3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
4. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.
5. Let applicant Abhimanyu involved in Case Crime No.373 of 2022 under Sections 147, 149, 304, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nagar, District Basti, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
A. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
B. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
C. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
D. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, of the commission of he is suspected.
E. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law."
Another co-accused Ram Bilas Yadav has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26123 of 2023 (Ram Bilas Yadav Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein-under :-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ram Bilas Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.373 of 2022 under Sections 147, 149, 304, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nagar, District Basti, during pendency of trial.
The co-accused, Abhimanyu, has been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19847 of 2023. The prayer for release of the applicant on bail on the ground of parity has been made. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.12.2022.
Considering the fact that the identically placed co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.
Having considered the material on record, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 that :-
(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, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted."
On the above premise, it is thus contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of aforementioned bailed out co-accused. There is no recovery from the applicant either. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which the case of present applicant could be so distinguished from aforementioned bailed out co-accused so as to deny him bail. He, therefore, submits that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the aforesaid bail orders, the applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 25.12.2022. As such he has undergone more than seven and half months of incarceration. No motive for committing the crime in question has emerged against applicant either. The police report under Section 173(2) CrPC i.e. charge-sheet has already been submitted. As such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant stands crystalized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, he therefore contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he 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 submits that since the applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The attention of the Court was invited to the order dated 02.05.2023 passed in bail application of co-accused Abhimanyu. On the basis of above, the learned A.G.A. submits that the Court has clearly observed in the aforementioned order that specific role has been assigned to co-accused Pradyumn Kumar and Sheshnath. Referring to the second statement (Mazid Bayan) of the first informant, which is at page 33/34 of the paper book, the learned A.G.A. contends that the first informant has categorically stated that two of the named accused i.e. Pradyumn Kumar and Sheshnath assaulted her husband with a Balli (thick and large stick). As such the role of the present applicant along with co-accused Sheshnath is clearly distinguishable from bailed out co-accused. On the cumulative strength of above, he therefore contends that applicant is not liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.
When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
Having heard the leaned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made, nature and gravity of offence and coupled with the fact that in the second statement (Mazid Bayan) of the first informant the role of assaulting the deceased with Balli has categorically been assigned to two named accused i.e. Pradyumn Kumar (applicant herein) and Sheshnath therefore, the case of the present applicant is clearly distinguishable from the aforementioned bailed out co-accused, this Court finds that no good ground is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail.
As a result, present application fails and is liable to be rejected.
It is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 17.8.2023.
Rks.