Pramendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P

Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35955 of 2023 Applicant :- Pramendra Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Prakash,Prakash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lalit Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶1Heard Mr. P.C. Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Lalit Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel representing first informant.

¶2Perused the record.

¶3This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Pramendra Kumar Singh, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 343 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station-Jagdishpura, District-Agra during the pendency of trial.

¶4Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 04.07.2023, a prompt FIR dated 04.07.2023 was lodged by first informant-Achal Singh (uncle of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No. 343 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station-Jagdishpura, District-Agra. In the aforesaid FIR, 3 persons namely - (1) Amar Singh, (2) Pramendra Kumar (applicant herein) and Smt. Dimpal have been nominated as named accused.

¶5The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is to the effect that on 01.01.2023 at about 06:00 PM, Ruchi Singh, daughter of first informant and Sanjanna Kumar, niece of first informant were going together to purchase vegetable. At this juncture, two persons overtook the daughter and niece of the first informant. Thereafter, they abused them and are alleged to have extended exhortation. In view of above the niece of the first informant committed suicide on the same day.

¶6Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused inasmuch as, the charge sheet has been submitted against applicant alone on 02.09.2023 whereby applicant has been charge sheeted under Section 306 IPC yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. An offence under Section 306 IPC has to be considered on a conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Sections 107 and 306 IPC. However, up to this stage, no element of abetment, instigation or conspiracy can be gathered against applicant. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased committed suicide on account of an immediate act of applicant. Moreover, no instigation can be inferred from the conduct of the applicant. To buttress his submission, he has invited the attention of the Court to the following judgments of of this Court and the Supreme Court in (i). Sarvesh Vs. State of U.P. 2018 ADJ Online 0163, (ii). Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2021 SCC OnLine SC 737, (iii). Mirza Iqbal alias Golu and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1251, (iv) Mariano Anto Bruno and Another Vs. Inspector of Police 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387 and (v) Kashibai and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 575. It is then contended that an offence under Section 306 IPC is subject to trial evidence.

¶7According to the learned counsel for applicant, the deceased is not the same girl whose modesty is alleged to have been earlier dislodged by the applicant. He submits that the deceased is not the prosecutrix of the earlier case crime number registered against the applicant. Moreover, as per the learned A.G.A., the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. i.e. final report has already been submitted in favour of applicant in the earlier criminal case.

¶8Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 05.07.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 3 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶9Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶10Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that an offence under Section 306 IPC has to be considered on the conjoint reading of Sections 107 and 306 IPC, up to this stage, there is nothing on record to infer abetment, instigation or conspiracy against the applicant, there is no such material to show that the deceased committed suicide on account of an immediate act of applicant, no instigation can be inferred from the conduct of the applicant either, an offence under Section 306 IPC is subject to trial evidence, the deceased is not the prosecutrix of the earlier criminal case registered against the applicant, moreover, according to the learned A.G.A., police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. i.e. final report has already been submitted in favour of applicant, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶11Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶12Let the applicant-Pramendra Kumar Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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/SHE 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.

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶13However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. Order Date :- 19.10.2023 Vinay High Court of Judicature at Allahabad