Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53002 of 2019 Applicant :- Lokendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Singh,Neeraj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Sahai, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 583 of 2018, under Sections 147,148, 149, 124-A, 332, 333, 353, 341, 336, 307, 427, 436 395, 302, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station- Syana, District- Bulandshahar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the instant application for bail principally on the following grounds. It is firstly asserted that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and that it is only after the recordal of the statement of a Sub Inspector that he was alleged to have been found to be complicit in the commission of the crime. Bail is also sought on the ground of parity and the attention of the Court is drawn to the order passed on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48602 of 2019 ( David Sindhu Vs. State of U.P.) , pursuant to which a coaccused David Sindhu has been enlarged on bail by the Court. It is lastly submitted that no recoveries have been made from the applicant. Learned counsel has referred to a certificate of disability which is stated to have been issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar to assert that he is physically disabled to the extent of 40%.
On the other hand, Sri Vikas Sahai, the learned A.G.A. has contended that this was an incident where the police authorities themselves were attacked by a mob and as is evident from the recitals in the chargesheet a direct role has been assigned to the applicant and the other accused including David Sindhu. It was also submitted that the complicity of the applicant was established on the basis of an analysis of the video footage which was gathered in respect of the commission of the crime.
Having considered the rival submissions, the Court firstly deems it apposite to extract the following part of the chargesheet which essentially establishes the gravity of the offence which was committed and which reads thus:
^^gokbZ Qk;j gksus ds mijakr lqfer] tkSuh] iz'kkar uV] MsfoM] jkgqy yksdsUnz] jktk o vU; nks rhu yksxks us Lo0 lqcks/k dqekj flag dks tku ls ekjus dh uh;r ls iRFkj ekjus yxs] tku cpkus dk vU; dksbZ pkjk u ns[krs gq, vius cpko esa ?kk;y lqcks/k dqekj }kjk vius fiLVy ls nks rhu gokbZ Qk;j Hkh fd;s x, rHkh tkSuh] ¼vLi"V½ iz'kkar uV] MsfoM] jkgqy] yksdsUnz] jktk o vU; [kM+s yksx fpYykus yxs lqfer dks xksyh ekj nh js] xksyh ekj nh js vkSj lkFk ds yksx jkgqy o fufru us lqfer dks gkFkksa esa idM+ fy;kA lqfer dks ysdj jkgqy] tkSuh] MsfoM ]fufru] yksdsUnz ekek lM+d dh vksj ys tkus yxs blh chp MsfoM] tkSuh fQj ls ihNs eqM+dj] iz'kkar uV] yksdsUnz vkSj jkgqy nwljh rjQ ls] jktk rFkk nks rhu vU; tks igys ls gh ukyh ds ikl ekStwn Fks] iz0fu0 lqcks/k dqekj dh vksj c<+us yxs blh chp ?kk;y lqcks/k dqekj ukyh ds lgkjs lgkjs [ksr ds nf{k.k dh vksj cuh ckMUMªh dh vksj tgak mUgsa iqfyl fn[kkbZ ns jgh Fkh] yM+ [kMkrs gq, muls tku cpkus ds fy, tkus yxs dqN nwj pyus ds ckn ukyh ds ikl iz'kkar uV us ihNs ls ?kk;y lqcks/k dqekj flag dh dkSyh Hkj yhA vkSj fxjk fy;k ] mudk fiLVy Nhu fy;k rHkh MsfoM] tksuh] jkgqy] jktk ] yksdsUnz o nks rhu yM+ds vU; us tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls MUMks ] o iRFkjks ls ekjuk 'kq: dj fn;kA mijksDr lHkh us dgk iz'kkar ekj lkys dks xksyh] ;gh ,l vks Fkk ] rqjUr iz'kkar us ?kk;y lqcks/k dqekj dks xksyh ekj nh bl ?kVuk dks [ksr dh nf{k.kh fnokj dh vkM esa [kM+s p'enhn lk{khx.k ds }kjk ns[kk x;kA** From the above extract, it is manifest that the police officer was mercilessly attacked and done to death by the accused and his accomplices. The applicant has been identified on the basis of the videographic record of the crime scene.
At the very outset it must be emphasised that while the liberty of bail directly flows from the right of personal liberty accorded to all by the Constitution, that right is neither unfettered nor unbridled. That right must necessarily be placed and tested in the balance alongside the larger societal need of peace and orderly conduct. Personal liberty cannot be exalted to a position where it completely eclipses or subsumes the expectation of society as a whole of a peaceful and harmonious coexistence. As was lucidly explained by the Supreme Court in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1, the Courts would be justified in withdrawing the liberty otherwise sanctioned to an individual if he becomes a “danger to the collective” itself.
The police force is a manifestation of the authority of the State. It represents its sovereign authority. The Courts would be failing in their duty if they were not to interdict all actions which assume the character of an affront and a challenge to the authority of the State itself. If such actions were permitted, it would lead to complete anarchy and lead us into the dark ages where individuals become a law unto themselves. The police authorities must be zealously protected against all such incursions and attempts. The Courts in situations like the present must also bear in mind the imperative need to convey to society as a whole a clear message that those who lay their lives on the frontline in service to society cannot be attacked or assaulted by unruly mobs. The right to peacefully protest cannot be abused to attack that very force which is charged with the duty to protect and serve.
Insofar as the order passed in respect of coaccused David Sindhu is concerned, the Court notes that the same fails to bear in mind the salient principles which have been enunciated by the Supreme Court referred to above and which command and oblige this Court to balance the personal liberties claimed by an individual alongside a larger societal interest which must necessarily include respect being shown to the authority of the law. The exuberance of youth can neither be misused nor treated as license to attack members of the force. The incident which forms subject matter of the instant application shows that the authority of the State itself was challenged and the deceased a police officer mercillessly done to death. Consequently, the prayer for bail is refused.
The Bail Application is rejected.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019/Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.) 1 (2014) 16 SCC 508