Allahabad High Court
Bheemsen vs State Of U.P. on 10 January, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45003 of 2022 Applicant :- Bheemsen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Gaur,Upendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.
By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 25 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 306, 355 IPC, police station Barkhera, district Pilibhit, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution case, in brief, the first information report was lodged through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging inter alia that husband of first informant had taken loan from the applicant and co-accused but was unable to return the same due to which demand was made by them on 11.10.2020 and the informant's husband was publicly humiliated on not being able to repay the loan amount. It is stated that due to aforesaid humiliation, the first informant's husband was quite depressed and, therefore, committed suicide.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only in order to avoid repayment of loan amount. It is submitted that although F.I.R. indicates one Nanhe Lal and Gagan Pandey being eye-witness account who are also relatives of first informant as having witnessed the humiliation but the aforesaid persons in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have completely denied the incident with statement that the deceased was a habitual drinker and had been injured a number of times in an inebriated condition. It is submitted that even the first informant in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. admits that her husband had a drinking problem due to which he had suffered injuries on a number of occasions. It is thus submitted that there is neither any eye-witness account nor corroborating evidence with regard to complicity of applicant. It is also submitted that even otherwise the ingredients of Section 107 I.P.C. are not made out although applicant is under incarceration since 20.08.2022 and the charge-sheet in the matter has already been submitted. It is further submitted that the case of the applicant stands on identical footing to that of co-accused Ramesh who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43828 of 2022, a copy of said order has been produced by learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record and hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.
Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that proximate cause between humiliation and suicide is clearly made out.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that although allegations have been levelled against the applicant of having caused humiliation of deceased due to which he committed suicide but the allegations appear to be general and vague in nature and at this stage do not appear to attract ingredients of Section 107 I.P.C. Eye witness accounts indicated in the F.I.R. also do not support the allegations. Earlier, a final report in the matter had been submitted but upon further investigation as directed by the court concerned, charge-sheet has been filed. I also find co-accused Ramesh under similar accusation has been granted bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, evidence, complicity of the accused, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of parity. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Bheemsen, 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) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.
(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned.
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.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
Order Date :- 10.1.2023 Shubham