Allahabad High Court
Veerpal vs State Of U.P. on 11 August, 2023
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163852 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34136 of 2023 Applicant :- Veerpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Mayank Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant Veerpal seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.72 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323, 504 IPC, police station Jarifnagar, district Budaun, during the pendency of trial.
Perused the record.
Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 22.02.2023, a prompt FIR dated 22.02.2023 was lodged from the side of the applicant and was registered as Case Crime No.71 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323, 504 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, police station Jarifnagar, district Budaun. In the aforesaid FIR, 15 persons, namely, Dalveer, Bhurran, Hetram, Amar Singh, Reshampal, Radheshyam, Chob Singh, Satyapal, Pappu, Kalicharan, Ramgopal, Bhure, Mallu, Naresh and Morpal have been nominated as named accused.
As per the prosecution story as unfolded in the aforesaid FIR, in the occurrence which occurred on 22.02.2023, three persons, namely, Mahipal, Rohtas and Bhajan Lal sustained injuries, whereas three persons, namely, Satendra, Jai Prakash and Hari Om died from the side of applicant.
In respect of the same incident, another FIR dated 22.02.2023 was lodged by first informant-Veerpal i.e. accused in earlier FIR and was registered as Case Crime No.72 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323, 504 IPC, police station Jarifnagar, district Budaun. In the aforesaid FIR, seven persons, namely, Rohtash, Veerpal, Jai Prakash, Mahipal, Satyendra, Bhajanlal and Hari Om have been nominated as named accused. According to the prosecution story as unfolded in the aforesaid FIR, two persons, namely, Dalveer and Radheshyam sustained injuries, whereas one person, namely, Reshampal died.
On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is a named and charge-sheeted accused inasmuch as the charge-sheet has been submitted on 21.05.2023, yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. The occurrence is admitted to the parties, inasmuch as, cross-first information reports have been lodged from both the sides. On the above premise, he then contended that the only issue which is required to be decided is as to who is the aggressor. Such a question can more appropriately be decided only during the course of trial. However, up to this stage, no such conclusive evidence has emerged on the basis of which it can be answered as to who is the aggressor. Even otherwise, the applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. However, the applicant has been implicated under the Gangster Act subsequent to the FIR giving rise to the present application for bail. The applicant is in jail since 23.02.2023. As such he has undergone more than six and half months of incarceration. The police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC has already been submitted. As such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. Up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of investigation. He therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since the applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. He further contends that in the occurrence giving rise to the present application for bail in all four persons have died and five persons have sustained injuries. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and coupled with the fact that crime committed by the accused is joint and common therefore incapable of being separated or segregated, as such no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that the occurrence giving rise to the present criminal proceeding is admitted to the parties, inasmuch as, cross-first information reports have been lodged from both the sides, there are injured/deceased from both the sides, thus the primary issue as to who is the aggressor can more appropriately be answered only during the course of trial, however upto this stage no such evidence has been discovered by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which it can be conclusively concluded as who is the aggressor, the police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC has already been submitted as such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, however in spite of above the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial, the clean antecedents of the applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Veerpal, involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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 date 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 I.P.C.
(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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 11.8.2023.
Rks.