Allahabad High Court
Murari Lal Verma Alias Murari Lal Goyal vs State Of U.P. on 22 April, 2024
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:69408 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13910 of 2024 Applicant :- Murari Lal Verma Alias Murari Lal Goyal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Giri Ram Rawat,Indra Deo Mishra,Shri Ram (Rawat),Vinesh Kumar Soni Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra,G.A.,Shashi Chood Pandey Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Ms. Kashish Farooqui, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Indra Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Murari Lal Verma Alias Murari Lal Goyal with a prayer to release him on bail in Case crime No.17 of 2024, under Sections 304, 285, 286 I.P.C. & Section 9B Explosives Act, 1884, P.S. Kotwali, District-Agra, during the pendency of the trial.
3. As per allegations in the FIR lodged against the applicant on 21.02.2024 at about 00:30 hours, the informant's nephew Akash used to work in the silver ornament factory/workshop. On 20.04.2024 at about 10:00 AM, while he was working in the aforesaid workshop, some incident took place, about which information was given to the informant by his another nephew Sanju that due to using of potash kept in the sliver ornament factory/workshop, the informant's nephew Akash as well as one Ravi and few others expired.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per post-mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of suffocation but viscera was preserved. It has been further contended that in the workshop no such material was present which was intentionally kept to let any such incident happen, which resulted in death of deceased and other persons. She further submits that from the evidence as collected by the Investigating Officer, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant had deliberately or intentionally kept such material only for causing death to the informant's nephew. She further submits that as per the statement of the landlord of the shop in which the applicant's factory/workshop was situated, permission was given to carry out workshop for silver work. There is no allegation against the landlord of the aforesaid shop that he had given any such permission to carryout any factory/workshop of silver therein or not. The landlord of the aforesaid shop has also not been nominated in the FIR. In the absence of any deliberate act on the part of the applicant no offence under the relevant section is made out. It was only an accident which took place due to leakage of certain gases due to potash kept there. He has stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application that applicant has no criminal history except the present one. Moreover, there is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future. Applicant is languishing in jail since 21.02.2024 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial and there is no chance of applicant's fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
5. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail stating therein that some persons were also suffered due to the aforesaid incident, it was deliberate on the part of the applicant that not to take the informant's nephew for treatment but he tried to safe his child. They have also placed the statement of landlord of the aforesaid shop wherein he has denied permission of keeping any asset of potash in the shop.
6. On the aforesaid objection as raised by learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant, learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is quite natural that any person, who would first try to save his or her family members in place of worker, even if it is presume that he has not tried to save the informant's nephew, the offence under Section 304 IPC is not made out as the incident has occurred due to keeping the potash in the shop for which no such specific denial has been made by the landlord as he had granted permission to continue the silver factory/workshop in the shop.
7. Learned counsel for informant, on the ground of mercy, has requested that sympathetic consideration may be given while imposing the condition of directing the applicant to pay Rs.50,000/- each to the family members of the deceased Akash and Ravi, after being released from jail.
8. The conduct of learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Indra Deo Mishra is well appreciated as he accepts the request of learned counsel for the informant stating therein that applicant will pay Rs.50,000/- each to the family members of the deceased Akash and Ravi, after being released from jail.
9. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, however, he could not dispute the factual matrix of the case.
10. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
11. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.
12. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused-applicants (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness. Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicants which would dis-entitle the applicants for Bail.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the applicant for the alleged offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
14. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) 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.
(vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
(vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.
(viii) 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.
(ix) Applicant will pay Rs.50,000/- each to the family members of the deceased Akash and Ravi, after being released from jail.
15. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 22.4.2024 Rahul.