Allahabad High Court
Vivek Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 24 June, 2021
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 8 Case :- BAIL No. - 8647 of 2020 Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Durga Prasad,Raj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State through video conferencing.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 26.9.2020 in Case Crime No. 383 of 2020 u/s 304 IPC, P.S. Tarun, District Ayodhya.
He has further contended that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. As per prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R. the present applicant has been assigned the role of quack and he advised one injection to the deceased and when the applicant injected that injection to the deceased, he died. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted with vehemence that the present applicant is not a quack but he takes tuition and works in jewelry shop so as to earn his livelihood. The applicant does not know the deceased or his family. He has further drawn attention of the Court towards postmortem report wherein it has been clearly shown regarding cause of death "The cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera has been preserved for further forensic examination." Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that if it is presumed for the arguments sake, however, the applicant has denied categorically that the deceased died on account of administering the wrong injection to him but that is not the cause of death. He has further submitted that the deceased may likely to suffering from Covid -19 and admittedly when the family members took the deceased to one doctor, such doctor denied treatment of that person. There may be likelihood that the deceased died out of Covid-19 as at that point of time the pandemic had been spread in all the places. The learned counsel has further drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no. 5 which is an affidavit of mother of the deceased wherein she has categorically indicated that the present applicant has been erroneously implicated in this case and she named the applicant on the advise of some person of the market who might be having some malice against the applicant. She has categorically stated that the present applicant had not treated her son in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this is a case of false implication and the present applicant may be released on bail. Since the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, he shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail.
Learned AGA has submitted that the present applicant may not be extended any benefit of the affidavit filed by the mother of the deceased inasmuch as this is subject matter of the trial as to whether the present applicant has committed any offence under section 304 IPC or not. He has also submitted that since the viscera has been preserved to ascertain the actual reason regarding cause of death, therefore, until and unless such report from forensic unit is received, no inference of any kind may be dawn at this stage. However, so far as the other submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant are concerned for the sake of bail, those contentions could not be disputed.
Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant involved in 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 :- 24.6.2021 Om