Allahabad High Court
Pramod Kumar @ Modi vs State Of U.P. on 20 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56111 of 2022 Applicant :- Pramod Kumar @ Modi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,G.S. Chauhan,Sunil Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the material placed on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2022. Apart from present case, applicant has a criminal history of 11 cases, which has been explained in paragraph No.38 of the affidavit to the bail application, which reveals that in two case under Section 110G Cr.P.C. proceeding have expired due to efflux of time and in one case which is registered as NCR No.12 of 2020, under Section 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Moth, District Jhansi, no order of investigation has been passed. One Complaint Case No. 7524 of 2020 was dismissed by ACJM/Civil Judge (Senior Division)FTC at the stage of 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 12.11.2021 and in rest of the cases, applicant has been acquitted by orders of competent court. In FIR as well as in the statement of injured, the applicant is said to be armed with country-made pistol, however, no firearm injury has been caused to the injured, as per his injury report. Even the injured has not attributed any specific role regarding causing of serious head injury to the appplicant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, three witnesses namely Udaynarain, Anurag and Neelu were introduced after more than two months of incident, out of which one Neelu has stated that present applicant had hit the injured by back side of axe on his head and threaten him but this statement has surfaced after a long gap and it does not find corroboration of FIR and statements of other witnesses. Co-accused Pawan and Govind Singh, who are assigned with similar role in the FIR as well as statements of injured, have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 8.12.2022 and 25.11.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 55693 of 2022 and 51177 of 2022, respectively by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court. Hence, the applicant also deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the accused is having a long criminal history of 11 cases including a case under Section 307 IPC but has not disputed the fact that the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, as above.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides and considering the nature of accusation, ground of parity and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let the applicant- Pramod Kumar @ Modi, involved in Case Crime No.205 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 506, 188 I.P.C., Police Station Moth, District Jhansi, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.
(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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 20.12.2022 Kamarjahan