Allahabad High Court
Balakram vs State Of U.P. on 19 October, 2022
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38811 of 2022 Applicant :- Balakram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amrita Singh,Pradeep Kumar Sharma Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.112 of 2022, under sections 302, 504, 34 IPC, Police Station Shergarh, district Bareilly.
3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 29th May, 2022 at about 6.00 P.M. when a dispute occurred between prime accused Chandra Pal and the father of informant with regard to implementation of a NREGA scheme. It is stated that applicant along with co-accused attacked the applicant's father due to which he suffered grievous injuries and subsequently passed away.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is further submitted that while in the F.I.R., the place where the body was found is indicated in the house of Chandra Pal but in the subsequent statement of informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the place from where the body is recovered is shown to be the house of Kishan Lal. As such it is submitted that the very place of incident has been changed in the subsequent statements of which casts doubt upon the very incident itself. It is further submitted that the first information report was lodged after delay of two days without any explanation. At the time of inquest, the informant and other witnesses Shailendra Singh and Nitej were also present but they did not disclose name of this applicant and other co-accused person for causing injuries to the deceased. Co-accused Daulat having similar role has also been enlarged on by bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 38460 of 2022.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and urged that co-accused Chandrapal is husband of village Pradhan who used to take soil from his field under NREGA Scheme and when the deceased went to make complaint, co-accused Chandrapal, Daulat Ram along with applicant made assault on the deceased causing 16 injuries, as a result, he died, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail.
6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that there is certain dichotomy in the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and the statement of informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. particularly pertaining to place of incident and the place where body of informant's father has been recovered. Co-accused Daulat having similar role as that of applicant has already been enlarged on bail as indicated herein above. Criminal history of the applicant has already been explained in paragraph 29 of bail application.
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 Balakram 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 :- 19.10.2022 Prabhat