Arvind Giri v. State of U.P

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19148 of 2023 Applicant :- Arvind Giri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jai Prakash Singh Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶1Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per allegations in the first information report, it is alleged that the applicant along with co-accused-Pushpendra Giri, who is son of the injured, has dashed his vehicle with the injured and thereafter both the accused persons have fired. 3-A. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the injured has suffered one firearm injury on the chest. As per statement of the injured, which is at page-58 of the paper-book, both accused persons have fired, however, it has not been stated that at whose behest the firearm injury has been sustained by the injured. It is further submitted that one firearm injury has been sustained. It is imperative on the part of the prosecution to have explained, how other person has been implicated with the support of Section 34 IPC. The prearranged plan for the incident has not been narrated. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the co-accused-Pushpendra Giri, as the co-accused Pushpendra Giri could have the motive for committing the crime as there was a property dispute. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 13.12.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶4Learned counsel for the informant, Sri Jai Prakash Singh submits that the injured has suffered one firearm injury on the chest and both accused persons are alleged to have caused fire. However, he does not dispute the fact that in the statement of the injured, who is father of one of the co-accused, has not nominated any person. 4-A. On a pointed query being made to learned counsel for the informant, as to what was the common intention as per the evidence which has resulted in the implication of the applicant, learned counsel for the informant could not disclose the common object.

¶5Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case. 5-A. Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶6It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶7The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC

¶51Learned AGA for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶8No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶9It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶10Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State. 10-A. In the present case, it is to be seen that under normal circumstances a person is liable to be prosecuted for the criminal act committed by him, however, to implicate liability can be fixed on a person under Section 34 IPC. For the purpose of Section 34 IPC common intention is a condition precedent in the present case. Learned counsel for the informant has not shown any common object between the two accused persons for committing the act. The dispute as per the record is with regard to the property between father and the son (co-accused). There could not have been any interest of the applicant in the property, who is brother-in-law of the other co-accused. Only one firearm injury has been sustained by the injured. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 13.12.2022.

¶11Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12Let the applicant Arvind Giri involved in Case Crime No. 530 of 2022, under Sections 323, 307/34 IPC and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Soron, District Kasganj, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶13In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 12.10.2023 S.Prakash High Court of Judicature at Allahabad