Allahabad High Court
Qamil vs State Of U.P. on 12 September, 2022
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19261 of 2022 Applicant :- Qamil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- K.C. Mishra,Ramanuj Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandan Yadav,Saurabh Yadav Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Anoop Trivedi learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ramanuj Tiwari learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Mr. Saurabh Yadav learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 326 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 323, 427, 302 IPC, P.S. Sardhana, District Meerut.
3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have occurred on 10th June, 2021 when about 50 people are said to have entered the house of informant and have attacked them although a meeting had been called for purposes of resolution of electoral dispute. It has been alleged that the applicant along with other co-accused was armed with knife and sword and caused grievous injuries upon the informant and his family members resulting also in the death of a person.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the allegations made against the applicant are not borne out either from the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the statement of eye witnesses or even by injury report inasmuch as allegation of being armed with knife and sword has been levelled upon the applicant but the injury report clearly indicates that there is no incised wound on any of the injured with injury having taken place with a blunt and hard object. It is further submitted that even from a reading of the F.I.R., a mob is said to have attacked the informant and his family members and therefore there was no occasion whereby the applicant would have been separately identified. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 2nd September, 2021 and the as as yet trial is only in a preliminary stage which only charges having been framed. He has submitted that co-accused Pramod and Binnu alias Vinod have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in bail application Nos. 9092 of 2022 and 9110 of 2022 respectively vide order dated 6.9.2022.
5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed bail application with the submission that a reading of the F.I.R. and statement of eye witnesses clearly corroborate the presence of applicant at the scene of crime as well as being a participant in the attack which was carried out. It is submitted that even from a perusal of the aforesaid, a cognizable case is made out against the applicant of forming an unlawful assembly and assaulting persons from the side of informant. It is further submitted that bail applications of five co-accused has already been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in leading bail application No. 44178 of 2021, Rajesh alias Jabbar versus State of U.P.
6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima faice, subject to evidence led, it appears that an altercation had taken place between the parties and allegation of mob violence has also been levelled in the F.I.R. which is supported by eye witness account. It appears from reading of the F.IR. and statement of witnesses that the applicant was armed with knife/sword. However it also appears from the injury reports that there are no incised wounds suffered by injured upon whom only lacerated wounds are found with hard and blunt objects. The bail applications of co-accused in the two cases indicated herein above have already been allowed and in case of rejection orders also, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had indicated the possibility of certain exaggerations to the manner of assault and allegations of indiscriminate firing. The bail however has been rejected on the ground of presence of applicants at the place of occurrence.
7. However a distinction is clearly apparent from the rejection orders inasmuch as the weapons with which the applicants are said to be armed do not appear to have inflicted any injuries upon informant or his family members. The applicant is in jail since 2nd September, 2021 with trial in its initial stage.
8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
9. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
11. Let applicant Qamil 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 :- 12.9.2022 Prabhat