Allahabad High Court
Satish Chandra vs State Of U.P. on 2 August, 2024
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:124734 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25852 of 2024 Applicant :- Satish Chandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. Office vide its report dated 01.08.2024 reported that in reference with the order dated 11.07.2024 of Hon'ble The Chief Justice this file has been placed before this Court since earlier bail application in same crime number has been decided by this Court.
2. Heard Sri Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Atul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Satish Chandra seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 645 of 2021 (S.T. No.307/2022), under Sections 304, 324, 336, 504 I.P.C. registered at P.S.- Uttar, District Firozabad.
4. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 05.10.2021, under Sections 504, 336, 324 I.P.C. by Satishchandra against Gaya Prasad and Satish the applicant alleging therein that on 04.10.2021 at about 09:00 p.m. Gaya Prasad co-accused and Satish in intoxicated condition after consuming liquor were abusing persons of the locality which was objected to by the first informant and his chacha Kayam Singh who had come there, on which the accused persons started assaulting them with bricks which hit Kayam Singh on his neck due to which he received injuries. The police came there and took Kayam Singh to Trauma Centre, Firozabad where he is admitted. The accused persons often resort to stone pelting and troubled the persons of locality.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that Kayam Singh was medically examined wherein the doctor found a lacerated wound on the neck below the left ear and abrasion on the top of shoulder. It is argued that subsequently Kayam Singh died on 16.10.2021 in the hospital. It is argued that cause of death as opined by the doctor is coma as a result of ante mortem injury. It is argued that the present dispute appears to have taken place at the spur of moment without any premeditation and there was no use of any weapon or arms and ammunition in the incident. It is argued that after death of the deceased Section 304 I.P.C. was added. It is argued that identically placed co-accused Gaya Prasad has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 04.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39423 of 2023 (Gaya Prasad vs. State of U.P.), copy of the said order is anenxure no. 7 to the affidavit. The applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-13 of the affidavit and is in jail since 12.3.2024.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail.
7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the incident appears to have taken place at the spur of moment without any premeditation and there was no use of any weapon or arms and ammunition. The deceased died during treatment. Identically placed co-accused Gaya Prasad has been granted bail by this Court.
8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
9. Let the applicant- Satish Chandra, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.
(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
11. The bail application is allowed.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 2.8.2024 Naresh