Ram Babu Dikshit v. State of U.P

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36477 of 2023 Applicant :- Ram Babu Dikshit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vipul Shukla 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 the allegations in the F.I.R. it is alleged that the nominated accused persons have assaulted the injured Surendra Kumar, Preeti, Sarvesh and Sheela. He submits that initially the allegations were general in nature, however, after one month the statement of the injured was recorded. In the statement of Preeti, the role of assault has been assigned to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to the injury report of Preeti which is at page 29 of the paper book. The fire arm wound of entry has been found on the right knee joint and exit wound has been found on the right knee joint. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that only the role assigned to the applicant is of causing firearm injury to injured Preeti. He submits that the injuries are not on vital part. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 10 of the rejoinder affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to the map which is at page 52 of the paper book to demonstrate that the place of incident in the map has not been shown as the house of the informant. He submits that as per the prosecution case the applicant was having a firearm weapon, however, the injury has been caused at the knee which is indicative of the fact that the applicant was having no intention to cause culpable homicide. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.06.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶4Sri Vipul Shukla, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the informant, has opposed the bail application and submits that indiscriminate firing has been made by the accused persons. As the result of the same, four persons have injured. Learned counsel for the informant does not dispute the fact that the role of causing injury by firing to the injured Preeti has been assigned to the applicant. He further does not dispute the fact that the injury caused to the injured Preeti was on the knee, although it was a firearm injury. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the informant that the firearm injury is indicative of the fact that the applicant was having intention to cause culpable homicide. Learned counsel for the informant submits that injury caused to Surendra Kumar has been caused by co-accused Shivanshu.

¶5Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the aforesaid controversy.

¶6Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:- "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶7In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶8In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶9The 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 has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶10No 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.

¶11It 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.

¶12Learned 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. 12-A. In the present case the only role assigned to the applicant is of causing firearm injury to the injured Preeti. The injury caused to the injured Preeti is on the right knee joint and there is one firearm injury both having entry and exit wound. The injuries on the right knee have been caused by firearm weapon, however, the injuries are not on the vital part. As per the prosecution case, the applicant was carrying the firearm and in case the applicant was having any intention to commit homicide the injury would have been caused on the vital part. The injury on the non vital part is indicative of the fact that the applicant had no intention to commit homicide. Further, only one firing has been made, as such, the same may also be indicative of the fact that the applicant was not intending to commit homicide. Although, learned counsel for the informant has stated that indiscriminate firing has been made by the accused person. However, as per the map, there is no indication that any bullet has been recovered from the place in person which would demonstrate that there was indiscriminate firing. Applicant's criminal history has been explained in para 10 of the rejoinder affidavit.

¶13Considering 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.

¶14Let the applicant, Ram Babu Dikshit, involved in Case Crime No. 375 of 2023, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 504, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Khutar, District Shahjahanpur, 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.

¶15In 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 :- 30.10.2023 K.K. Maurya High Court of Judicature at Allahabad