Rajesh v. State of U.P

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6997 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shaheen Bano,Abhishek Kumar Saroj,Radhey Shyam Shukla,Shahnawaz Khan,Vipul Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 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 the First Information Report was lodged on 27.8.2022 in respect of an occurrence, which has taken place on 25.8.2022 at 09:30 p.m. It is submitted that as per FIR, it is alleged that nominated accused persons including applicant have assaulted and the role of firing has been assigned to applicant as a result of same, injured has suffered firearm injury. It is submitted that the incident has taken place in the night at secluded place and both informant and applicant were having prior enmity. It is submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging of FIR and although the injured has suffered firearm injury, however, the statement of injured under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded after three months from the date of discharge from the hospital and no reason has been assigned for delay in recording the statement. It is further submitted that the statement of injured has been recorded after submission of charge sheet. It is also submitted that although the injured has supported the prosecution case, however, in view of an inordinate delay in recording the statement, it cannot be ruled out that the incident has not taken place as per prosecution case. It is submitted that applicant has no previous criminal history except one under Arms Act. Necessary pleadings has been explained in paragraph 9 of the affidavit. Applicant is languishing in jail since

1.9.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶4Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submits that there is firearm injury to the injured. He submits that although the incident has taken place at the night hours, however, the statement of injured has been recorded after three months, as the injured went out for his medical treatment.

¶5Learned 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 there is a possibility of interdicting fair trial by the accused-applicant if released on bail. No material has been shown that the Applicant is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or there is any material to show that applicant will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶7The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused-applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness.

¶8Learned A.G.A. has not placed any reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/State will be at peril in case the Applicant is released on bail.

¶9It is not the case of the State that the applicant has been convicted for any offence on previous occasion.

¶10No material has been placed by the opposite party that the Applicant in the past has attempted to evade the process of law. Further, no material facts and circumstances have been placed to show that it is not in public interest or interest of society at large to release the applicant on bail.

¶11No material has been shown to suggest that the applicant is at flight risk, has chance of repeating the offence, or intimidating the witness if enlarged on bail. 11-A. It is to be seen in the present case that the First Information Report was lodged with delay and no explanation for delay has been offered by the prosecution. The statement of the injured has been recorded after three months from the date of discharge from the hospital of which no explanation has been offered and the only explanation offered is that the injured went out of station for medical treatment, however, when the injured went out of station and when he came back, has not been stated. Such defence cannot be permitted. There is enmity between the parties. The applicant is languishing in jail since 1.9.2022 and the applicant has no previous criminal history except one under Arms Act.

¶12Considering 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.

¶13Let the applicant Rajesh involved in Case Crime No.647 of 2022, under Sections 341, 307 IPC , Police Station Tilahar, 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.

¶14In 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 :- 7.12.2023 D. Tamang High Court of Judicature at Allahabad