Devendra vs State Of U.P.

Manish Mathur, J

Supplementary affidavit is taken on record.

1A. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.75 of 2022 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 354B, 354, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Shergarh, District Mathura.

As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have occurred on 18.03.2022 when the applicant allegedly misbehaved with mother of informant due to which informant, her father and other family members sought to save her but were beaten up by the applicant and co-accused by hockey and other sticks particularly on private parts and chest of father of first informant leading to his death.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that the postmortem report does not corroborate the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. inasmuch as there are no injuries on private parts of the deceased with only two injuries being indicated in the right side of chest. It is further submitted that even the statements of eye witnesses are contradictory since as per informant the applicant and co-accused were carrying hockey and other sticks whereas other witnesses such as Km. Neha and Km. Asha have contradicted the statement and have indicated that neither the applicant nor any other co-accused had any weapon or hockey sticks in their hands. It is further submitted that the prosecution has also ignored injuries suffered by applicant's side, attention has been drawn to medical examination of one Lakhan with the submission that non-explanation of injuries of accused indicates suppression of genesis of incident as per judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Babu Ram & others v. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 3 SCC 709 and Amarjit Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2009) 16 SCC 649.

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. corroborates the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and makes out cognizable offence against applicant.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

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 general role has been assigned to applicant in the beating up of deceased, it also appears that the allegations of injuries suffered by the deceased do not appear to be corroborated by postmortem report, there are material contradictions in the statements of eye witnesses regarding weapon used in the altercation, the applicant is in jail since 04.04.2022 and although charge sheet has been filed trial as yet has not commenced, previous criminal history of applicant of two cases have been explained in supplementary affidavit, as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case,this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

Let applicant Devendra, involved in the 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.