Allahabad High Court
Israr [Second Bail] vs State Of U.P. on 15 June, 2020
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 17 Case :- BAIL No. - 7842 of 2019 Applicant :- Israr [Second Bail] Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Charitra Pandey,Mohd.Mateen,Nitin Kumar Mishra,Rajendra Prasa Mishra,Vaibhav Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party.
2. This second bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.-80 of 2018, under Sections 304/504/323 IPC, registered in Police Station Pachpedwa, District Balrampur.
3. First bail application had been rejected on 29.04.2019 in Criminal Misc. Case No.6216(B) of 2018 with direction that trial was to conclude within a period of one year. It was also directed that in case trial is not concluded within one year from the date certified copy of this order is produced, then the bail application of accused-applicant would be considered on merit. The accused-applicant was given liberty to move bail application even before expiry of one year as prescribed vide earlier order of this Court dated 20.12.2018. It is in these circumstances that the second bail has been filed with the submission that trial has not yet concluded despite one year having passed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident pertains to 13.05.2018 and a non cognizable offence first information report was registered on the same date under Section 323 and 504 IPC indicating an altercation between the accused and Haridwar Yadav due to which injuries were sustained by Haridwar Yadav, son of the complainant.
5. It has been submitted that due to said incident, one Lalmani son of Jaisam died due to which first information report was lodged against the applicant on 22.05.2018. It has been submitted that a perusal of the injury report will indicate that all injuries are simple in nature using blunt and hard object. It has further been submitted at best case under Section 325 IPC is made out against the applicant and particularly that there was no premeditated intention. It has further been submitted that accused-applicant is in jail for the past two years without the trial having concluded. Attention has also been drawn to the death certificate indicating death to have occurred due to Cardiac Arrest.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party has disputed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant with the submission that injury report itself clearly indicates swelling over temporal region of the deceased. Attention has also been drawn to the post-mortem report in which injury is being indicated on the head of deceased, which is a vital organ. Learned Additional Government Advocate is also indicated that the immediate cause of death is hemorrhage and shock due to anti-mortem injuries and as such the accused-applicant is not entitled for bail.
7.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."
8. 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.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant,Israr, 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 :- 15.6.2020 Subodh/-