Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra vs State Of U.P. on 4 April, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:58449 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1171 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kawya,Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Tripathi Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Bhavisya Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant Ramesh Chandra seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 393 of 2022, under section 304/34 IPC, Police Station- Bhogaon, District Mainpuri, during pendency of trial.
The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 19.11.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 52048 of 2022 (Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under:
"1. Heard Mr. Dharmendra Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Instant bail application has been filed by applicant-Ramesh Chandra seeking his enlargement on bail in of Case Crime No. 393 of 2022 under Sections 304/34 I.P.C., Police Station- Bhagaon District-Manpuri, during the pendency of trial.
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 25.08.2022, a prompt F.I.R. dated 25.08.2022 was lodged by first informant Kallu (father of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No. 393 of 2022, which was registered as Case Crime No. 668 of 2017 under under Sections 147, 148 and 304I.P.C., Police Station- Bhagaon District-Manpuri. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons namely -Ramesh Chandra, Anshu @ Ramoo, Shilendra @ Samoo, Anil Kumar and Dhruv Singh have been nominated as named accused.
5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused with a common intention assaulted Durgesh brother of first informant with Iron Rod, Lathi, Danda and Sharp Edged Weapon. On accoun of aforesaid, Durgesh sustained injuries. Thereafter, he was taken to concerned Hospital. The Doctor, who attended the injured prepared the Medico Legal Report (Injury-Form) of the injured dated 25.08.2022. As per aforesaid Medico Legal Report, the injured sustained following injuries.
i. L.W. 4 cm X 2 Cm on back of head- ADV. X-Ray.
ii. L.W. 3 cm X 2 cm on back of head adjacent to injury no.i-Adv. X-Ray.
iii. Contusion 4 cm X 3.5 cm on left upper arm- Adv. X-Ray.
iv. L.W. 5 cm on left side (lateral part) back of abdomen.
v. Multiple abrasion size 6 cm X 1 cm to 2 cm. on away back of chest and back of abdomen.
vi. Contusion 3.5 cm X 3 cm at the ankle joint.
6. However, while the injured was being taken to Hospital, his condition was found to be critical. Therefore, on the way, one of the police constable, who took the injured to the Doctor, recorded his statement, which is on record at page 44 of the paper book. In the aforesaid dying declaration, the injured has nominated named accused Ramoo and Samoo in causing injury to him, where named accused Ramesh was said to be present at the place of occurrence. Subsequently the injured Durgesh succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Thereafter, inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of panch witnesses, nature of death of deceased was characterised as homicidal. Subsequent to above the post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of deceased, found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased.
"i. Multiple L/w size 5 x 4 cm on left occipital region.
ii. Contusion size 7 x 5 cm. on right eye with cheek.
iii. Contusion size 12 x 10 cm. on left upper arm.
iv. Multiple Contusion size 60 x 37 cm on back of chest, abdomen and both gluteal region.
v. Contusion size 9 x 3 cm on back of left thish.
vi. Contusion size 18 x 5 cm on lateral aspect of left leg including left ankle joint.
vii. Contusion size 6 x 2 cm right ASIS.
viii. Multiple abrasion ever right hand middle finger and ring finger.
ix. Abrasion size 4 x 2 cm on right elbow.
x. Multiple small L/W on right leg just above right ankle joint on medical aspect.
7. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon cause of death of deceased was Haemorrhagic shock as a result of ante-mortem head injuries.
8. After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of afore-mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which is substantially adverse to named accused. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigation Officer he opined to submit charge sheet. Accordingly, he submitted the charge sheet dated 26.10.2022 whereby three of the named accused namely Ramesh Chandra, Anshu @ Ramoo, Shilendra @ Samoo have been charge sheeted under sections 302/34 I.P.C.
9. Subsequently, Investigating Officer filed a supplementary charge sheet dated 03.11.2022 whereby another named accused Amit Kumar has been charge-sheeted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. However, complicity of one of the named accused namely Dhruv Singh was not established in the crime in question. Accordingly, he was exculpated by the Investigating Officer.
10. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though the applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused but he is innocent. Drawing a paralleled between the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the statement of Durgesh (deceased recorded by the Investigating Officer, he submits that the injured before his death has not implicated the present applicant in the crime in question. Allegations made in the F.I.R. and dying declaration of deceased are not consistent. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the aforesaid dying declaration. With reference to the Medico Legal Report and the post-mortem report of deceased, he submits that they are at variance which create a doubt with regard to day, date and time of occurrence. It is then contended that the motive for committing the crime in question is not explicit from the F.I.R.. It is lastly contended that applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 28.08.2022 As such, he has undergone more than one and a half months of incarceration. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. Since the charge-sheet has already been submitted against applicant therefore the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant, stands crystallised. As such, custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary during the course of trial. On the cumulative strength of above, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant be enlarged on bail.
11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that since the applicant is a named and charge-sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. It is next contended by learned A.G.A. that present case is a case of direct evidence. As such, motive is wholly immaterial. According to the learned A.GA.. the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in the occurrence which occurred on 25.08.2022. He further submits that when the defence doubts the injuries sustained by deceased on any ground the burden is upon the accused to explain the circumstances in which the injured sustained injuries. No explanation regarding above has come forward. The eye witness of the occurrence in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. On the cumulative strength of above, he submits that applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court, Therefore, present application for bail is liable to be rejected.
12. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that applicant is named accused as well as charge-sheeted accused, injuries sustained by deceased has been disputed by applicant but no explanation has been offered by the applicant with regard to manner in which injured sustained injuries, the statement of the injured recorded by the police constable is ipso-facto not reliable at this stage in view of the judgement of Apex Court in Kushal Rao vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
14. Consequently, present application fails and is therefore liable to rejected.
15. Accordingly, present application for bail is rejected. "
Learned counsel for aplicant contends that in the F.I.R. giving rise to present application for bail, five persons namely, Ramesh Chandra, Anshu @ Ramu, Shilendra @ Samu, Amit Kumar and Mr. Dhruv Singh, were nominated as named accused. Subsequently, upon completion of investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., Investigating Officer has submitted Police report dated 13.11.2022, in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. whereby four of the named accused were charge sheeted whereas one of the named accused namely, Roop Singh was exculpated.
Learned counsel for revisionist next contends that the bail status of charge-sheeted accused is as follows:
Charge sheeted accused namely Anshu has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 10.1.2024, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 56044 of 2023 (Anshu Vs. State of U.P). For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under:
"??????? ??????? ???????? ????? ????????? ????, ????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??0?0??0 393 ?? 2022, ???????? ???? 304/34 ??0??0??0, ???? ??????, ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ???
????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?????????, ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????
????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??, ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??, ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??, ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ??, ????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ???????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ??, ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??, ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ????? ????? 5?4 ?? ?? ???? ????????? ?????? ? ??? 9 ??????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ??, ???? ?? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????????????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ??, ???? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ?????, ????? ????? ???? ??0 49376 ?? 2023 ??? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ??0 21-11-2023 ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??, ????? ????? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??, ????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? 12-9-2023 ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ??, ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????
??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ??, ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ? ???? ????
????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ???????????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???????????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???, ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ???
??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? ????????? ???-???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????
1- ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ??????
2- ????? ??????? ????????? ? ?????/??????????? ?? ???????/???????? ?????
3- ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?????, ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ??????
4- ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?????????? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ? ??? ??????? ????? ??????
5- ????? ????????? ?? ?????????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?????????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????, ????? ???? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????
??????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???, ??????? ???????? ????? ?? ????? ?????????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ??? "
Another charge sheeted co-accused Shilesh Kumar, has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 21.11.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49376 of 2023 (Shilesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P). For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under:
"1. ??????? ??????? ???????? ????? ????????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? 393/2022, ???????? ???? 304, 34 ?????????, ???? ?????, ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ???
2. ????? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????
3. ????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??, ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??, ????? ???? ???? ???????????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?????????????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??, ????? ?? ????????????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ??, ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? "???? ? ???? (?????) ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??"? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? "Multiple L/w size 5*4 cm on left occipital region. ? ??? 9 ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???" ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???????????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? "Haemorrhagic shock due to ante mortem head injury" ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???????? ????? ????, ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??, ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ??? 12.09.2022 ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????
4. ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ??, ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ? ????? ????
5. ????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???????????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???, ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ???
6. ??? ??? ?? ???-??? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ???- ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????
1. ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ??????
2. ????? ??????? ????????? ? ??????? / ??????????? ?? ???????/???????? ?????
3. ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?????, ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ??????
4. ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?????????? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ? ??? ??????? ????? ??????
5. ????? ????????? ?? ?????????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?????????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????, ????? ???? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????
??????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???, ??????? ???????? ????? ?? ????? ?????????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ???"
The first bail application of applicant Ramesh Chandra was rejected by this Court vide order dated 7.6.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22161 of 2023 (Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P). which is extracted herein under:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
2. This bail application has been filed by the applicant - Amit Kumar involved in case crime no.393 of 2022 under Sections 304, 34 IPC, Police Station Bhongaon, District Mainpuri.
3. The F.I.R. of this case contains the allegations that co-accused Dhruv Singh has some illicit relations with Sucheta, the daughter of other co-accused Ramesh Chandra. The informant, his brother Durgesh (the deceased) and other family members protested to it and the deceased also caught the aforesaid Sucheta and Dhruv in some compromising position and all the accused persons from that moment became inimical to the deceased and under a criminal conspiracy, accused persons namely, Ramesh Chandra, Anshu alias Ramu, Shilendra alias Shamu, Amit Kumar and Dhruv Singh made serious assault upon Durgesh on 25.8.2022 at about 12:00 hours with the aid of iron rod, lathi, danda and sharp edged weapon. On the shrieks of the informant, witnesses came at the spot and rescued them. When the injured Durgesh was taken to the hospital, he died, but however before his death, he narrated some facts before the police constable which was video recorded. F.I.R. was lodged on 25.8.20222 and investigation started.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed any offence. Alleged offences are not made out against the applicant. It has also been submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version at all. It is also submitted that the present applicant had no motive to do away with the deceased. It is further submitted that if co-accused Dhruv had some illicit relations with the daughter of other co-accused Ramesh Chandra, there could be a motive with co-accused Ramesh Chandra to cause any harm to other co-accused Dhruv, but the present applicant had absolutely no motive for the alleged murder of the deceased. It is further submitted that there is no cogent ocular evidence against the applicant on record. It is next submitted that Constable Devendra, who took the deceased Durgesh, while he was in injured condition, to the hospital, has stated before the I.O. that he has been assaulted by Ramu and Samu and that Ramesh was also present over there and the said statement was videographed by him. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the deceased in fact entered into the house of the co-accused Ramesh Chandra and then he was beaten by the family members of Ramesh Chandra aforesaid and sustained injuries and this incident was informed by some person to the police and a GD Report was also prepared on 25.8.2022 at about 3:15 P.M. It is further submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 8.11.2022. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate in the trial. On the aforesaid submissions, a prayer for bail has been made.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that the present case rests upon ocular evidence. Eyewitness Rajpal has given categorical statement before the I.O. that he had seen all the named accused persons including the present accused applicant making assault upon the deceased with the aid of iron rod, lathi, danda and sharp edged weapon. It is further submitted that the informant in his statement has also corroborated the prosecution case. Other witnesses of fact have also stated in favour of the prosecution in their statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that in the autopsy report and inquest report of the deceased, several injuries have been found over his body and the nature of the injuries again corroborates the prosecution version. It is further submitted that active participation and active role of the present accused applicant has been proved on the basis of statement of the witnesses recorded by the I.O. during investigation. It is further submitted that the place of occurrence, as found by the I.O., is not the house of co-accused Ramesh Chandra, but the incident happened on road (??????). It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Ramesh Chandra has been denied bail by this Court in criminal misc. bail application no.52048 of 2022 vide order dated 19.11.2022. It is further submitted that the death of the deceased has been occurred due to the injuries caused in the incident. It is a case of direct evidence and hence, a prayer for rejection of bail has been made.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also keeping in view the eyewitness account and medical report of the deceased as well as nature and gravity of the offence, evidence, complicity of accused and relying upon the principles enumerated in Sudha Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another (2021) 4 Supreme Court Cases 781, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find it fit to release the applicant on bail.
7. The bail application of the accused-applicant is rejected. "
Subsequently, Amit Kumar filed his 2nd bail application, which was registered as 1503 of 2024 (Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P.). The same was also rejected. The same is quoted herein under:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
2. This is second bail application on behalf of the applicant - Amit Kumar involved in case crime no.393 of 2022 under Sections 304, 34 IPC, Police Station Bhongaon, District Mainpuri.
3. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order 7.6.2023 on merits.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed any offence. Alleged offences are not made out against the applicant. It has also been submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version at all. It is also submitted that the present applicant has a good case for bail on merits. It is further submitted that co-accused Shailesh Kumar @ Shanu and Anshu @ Ramu have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 21.11.2023 and 10.1.2024, respectively. It is also submitted that in the case diary the statement of Constable Devendra Singh, who was carrying the deceased in injured condition to the hospital, has been recorded and he has stated before the I.O. that the deceased had told him that Ramu and Shamu had made assault upon him. It is also submitted that since the main assailants Ramu and Shamu have been granted bail by this Court, the present applicant is also entitled for bail. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate in the trial.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that the present case rests upon ocular evidence. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits and the Court has discussed the evidence on record and has given a prima facie finding that active role and participation of the present applicant has been shown on the basis of statement of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during investigation. It is also submitted that only on the ground that after rejection of the first bail application of the present applicant two other co-accused persons have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Cout the second bail application cannot be allowed.
6. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also keeping in view the fact that no new ground except parity of the co-accused, the eyewitness account and medical report of the deceased as well as nature and gravity of the offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find it fit to release the applicant on bail. The second bail application of the accused-applicant is rejected. "
On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that case of present applicant is on better footing than bailed out co-accused Shilesh and Anshu, inasmuch as the deceased had made declaration before his death to the Police personnel which is at page 71 of the paper book that role of assault is assigned to Samu whereas Ramesh was present at the place of occurrence. He further contends that bail application of co-accused Amit Kumar whose bail application has been rejected on the ground that witnesses examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. have implicated all the accused in assaulting the deceased. However, in view of the statement of deceased before the Police personnel himself, the case of present applicant is clearly distinguishable from co-accused Samu and Ramu. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for applicant contends that case of present applicant is clearly distinguishable. As such, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 28.8.2022. As such, he has undergone one year and eight months of incarceration. Police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. However, upto this stage, no such, circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. It is thus urged 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 trial.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. He submits that as per the statement of witnesses examined the role of assault has been assigned to all the charge sheeted accused. Since criminality committed is joint and common, therefore the role of applicant is common, which cannot be separated or saggregated. 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, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that out of four charge sheeted accused two of the charge sheeted accused have been enlarged on bail. The role of assault upon deceased as per the statement of deceased has been assigned to co-accused Ramu and Samu who have already been enlarged on bail. As per the statement of deceased the applicant is said to be present at the place of occurrence. The bail application of co-accused Amit Kumar has been rejected on the ground that as per the statements of eye-witness all the accused have assaulted the deceased. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be so distinguished from aforesaid bailed out co-accused so as to deny him bail, the period of incarceration undergone, the clean antecedents of applicant, the Police Report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant remains crystalized yet the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant could not point out any such circumstance from the record, necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal and another Vs. The state of maharashtra and Another, 2023 Live law (SC) 373, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed.
Let the applicant Ramesh Chandra, 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) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(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 THE HIM/HER 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/her 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 :- 4.4.2024 Arshad