Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19846 of 2021 Applicant :- Deepak Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Muktesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for applicant virtually and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. The applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present bail application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 272 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 304 IPC, Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur, after rejection of his Bail Application vide order dated 02.04.2021 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaunpur.
3. In the present case allegations against applicant are that he alongwith other eight accused formed an unlawful assembly having weapon such as Lathi, Danda and Saria, assaulted the persons from complainant side resulting death of one person and causing injuries to four persons.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that there is a delay of about more than five weeks in lodging FIR. All the accused have been attributed general role of assaulting the persons from complainant side. He further pointed out that a cross FIR was promptly lodged from the side of accused wherein one person died and four persons were injured. He also submitted that at this stage it cannot be ascertained that who was aggressor in the occurrence and prayed that applicant, who is in jail since 08.03.2021 is entitled for bail.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for State opposing the bail has pointed out that from the side of complainant immediate cause of death was septicaemia shock and comma due to intestinal bleeding and anti-mortem head injuries. He further submitted that multiple injuries were caused to four injured persons including lacerated wounds caused by hard and blunt object. He also pointed out that only on the basis that there is a cross case also, no bail could be granted.
6. Law on bail is well settled that 'Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception'. Bail should not be granted or rejected in a mechanical manner as it concerns liberty of a person. At the time of considering an application for bail, the Court must take into account certain factors such as existence of a prima facie case against the accused, gravity of the allegations, severity of punishment, position and status of the accused, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the Courts as well as criminal antecedents of the accused. It is also well settled that the Court while considering an application for bail must not go into deep merits of the matter such as question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses which can only be tested during the trial. Even ground of parity is one of the above mentioned aspects which are essentially required to be considered. It is also well settled that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner, compassionately and not in whimsical manner. The Court should record the reasons which have weighed with the count for the exercise of its discretionary power for an order granting or rejecting bail. Conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory. The Court while granting bail in the case involving sexual offence against a woman should not mandate such bail conditions, which is/are against the mandate of "fair justice" to victim such as to make any form of compromise or marriage with the accused etc. and shall take into consideration the directions passed by Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 230, in this regard.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. In the present case applicant alongwith other co-accused have formed an unlawful assembly having Lathi, Danda and Saria and in furtherance of common object attacked the persons of complainant side in which one person died due to head injury and four persons were injured having lacerated wounds caused by blunt and hard object. Presence of applicant and other co-accused is not disputed. The effect of cross case and alleged death and injuries caused to the persons of accused side can not be a sole ground to grant bail to applicant in the present case. The delay in lodging FIR is prima facie explained in the contents of FIR itself as well as in the application to lodge FIR filed before concerned Magistrate, copy of which is on record. The allegations against applicant are of serious in nature. Prima facie he was a part of unlawful assembly which in furtherance of common object, caused death of one person and injured four persons. Therefore, even for the sake of argument, if there is no specific overact attributed to applicant, yet being member of unlawful assembly, he would be guilty of offence committed by any of the member of the said unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of such assembly.
8. The outcome of the above discussion is that applicant is not entitled for bail.
9. The application is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 19.5.2021 AK Digitally signed by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery Date: 2021.05.20 15:03:04 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad