Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21111 of 2021 Applicant :- Chaitu Alias Chandra Prakash Ram Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Matter taken up through Video Conferencing.
Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri J. B. Singh, learned AGA for the State who have appeared through Video Conferencing.
Perused the material on record.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the applicant along with present bail application for exempting the filing of certified copy of the F.I.R. as it could not be made available to the applicant due to COVID-19.
The exemption application is allowed.
The filing of certified copy of the F.I.R. is hereby exempted.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Chaitu Alias Chandra Prakash Ram, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 42 of 2021, under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506, 352, 34, 302 I.P.C. and 4/25 Arms Act, registered at P.S. Jahanaganj, District Azamgarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that although in the F.I.R. eight accused persons including the applicant have been named but general role of assault has been given to all accused persons by lathi, danda, rod and knife. It is argued that subsequently the statement of first informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which is annexure no. 2 to the affidavit, in which she has assigned the role of causing injury by knife to the deceased Tribhuwan Ram to co-accused Sunil whereas the other co-accused persons have been assigned the role of assaulting by lathi. The applicant has also been assigned the role of assaulting the deceased by lathi, but even therein there is no specification as to whose assault was the cause of death of the deceased.
It is argued that the deceased has received four injuries as per post mortem examination report in which injury no. 1 is stab wound and injury no. 2 and 3 are lacerated wound and injury no. 4 is contusion and the cause of death as opined by the doctor is haemorrhagic shock due to ante mortem injury. It is argued that even the injuries received by the deceased are inconsistent with the prosecution version wherein all eight accused persons are stated to have assaulted the deceased.
It is further argued that the first informant Smt. Renu Devi, Bheem Ram and Nagina Ram, who are also the alleged injured persons of the incident, have received injuries and their injury report are annexed as annexure no. 8, from which it transpires that Smt. Renu Devi has received two injuries which have been opined to be simple, Nagina Ram has also received two injuries which have also been opined to be simple, Bheema Ram has received as many as eight injuries out of which except for injury no. 1 which was kept under observation, the other injuries have been opined to be simple in nature whereas injury report of alleged injured Deena Nath has not seen light of the day. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all accused persons except for co-accused Sunil who has been assigned the specific role of assaulting the deceased with knife and as such, role of the applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Sunil.
It is argued that the co-accused Chandan Kumar has been granted bail by this Court today i.e. 25.5.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21095 of 2021 (Chandan Kumar Vs. State of U.P.). It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 02.3.2021.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and has joined hands with the other co-accused persons and committed offence and hence, the prayer for bail be rejected.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the F.I.R. has been registered against eight accused persons alleging common and general role of assault by lathi, danda, rod and knife. But in the statement of the first informant and the other eye witnesses who are injured persons, role of using knife upon the deceased has been specifically assigned to co-accused Sunil whereas the other seven co-accused persons including the applicant have been assigned the role of using lathi but the injury received by the deceased being two lacerated wound do not corroborate the manner of assault and even the injuries received by the other injured persons are simple in nature except for injury no. 1 received by injured Bheema Ram which also does not corroborate the manner of assault.
The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the co-accused Sunil who has been assigned the role of using knife upon the deceased.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Chaitu Alias Chandra Prakash Ram, 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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.
(V) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 25.5.2021 Naresh Digitally signed by Justice Samit Gopal Date: 2021.05.25 16:43:45 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad