Shyam Singh v. State of U.P

Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47896 of 2023 Applicant :- Shyam Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Gaurav Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. Heard Mr. Gaurav Srivastav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Shyam Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.402 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, police station North, district Firozabad, during the pendency of trial. Perused the record. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 02.06.2023, a prompt first information report dated 02.06.2023 was lodged by first informant, namely, Arvind Kumar (husband of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No.0402 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, police Station North, district Firozabad. In the aforesaid FIR, six persons, namely, Smt. Sanjo Devi; Shyam Singh (applicant herein); Anuj Kumar; Satyaveer; Manoj Kumar

(HDFC) and Ram Lakhan have been nominated as named accused. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant contends that co-accused Anuj has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.47881 of 2023 (Anuj Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein-under :- "1. वररममान दमाणणቄኌक ्ቚककीरर जममानर ्ቚमाररनमा पत, आववेदक अननुज ककी ओर सवे मनु०अ०स० 402/2023, अन्ररर धमारमा 306 भमा०ददं०वव०, रमानमा नमारर, जजलमा वफिररोजमाबमाद मम जममानर पर मनु्ሹ करनवे हवेरनु ्ቚस्रनुर वकयमा रयमा हहै।

¶2आववेदक कवे ववदमान अजधव्ሹमा, एवदं ववदमान अपर शमासककीय अजधव्ሹमा करो सनुनमा ररमा पतमावलली कमा पररशलीलन वकयमा।

¶3आववेदक कवे ववदमान अजधव्ሹमा नवे रकर ्ቚस्रनुर वकयमा वक आववेदक करो इस ्ቚकरर मम रलर एवं‌फि जरኍ ‌ढंग‌से‌झठू ा‌फि ं साया‌गया‌है ,oउसने‌कजथत‌अपराध‌काररत‌नहीሻ ‌वकया‌है,oबयान एच.डኌ ी.एफि ‌सी‌माइቅो‌फि ाइनेन् स‌लोन‌वडኌ पाटरमेन् ट‌मैनेजर‌ने‌कथन‌वकया‌सर‌हमार‌े बकह कमरኍ ‌को‌बेवजह‌ही‌फि ं साया‌जा‌रहा‌ह।ै ‌उसकी‌कोई‌गलती‌नहीሻ ‌ह‌ै और‌न‌ही‌उसके ‌दारा बेबी‌देवी‌से‌ऋण‌की‌वकश् त‌पቚ ा् ‌करने‌हेतु‌दबाव‌बनाया‌गया‌ह।ै ‌ये‌सब‌मृवतका‌बेबी‌देवी के ‌पवत‌अरववन् द‌दारा‌बकह ‌से‌आजथरक‌लाभ‌लेने‌हेतु‌वकया‌गया‌ह।ै ‌पቚ श् न‌यवद‌वकसी‌समूह को‌कोई‌मेम् बर‌अपनी‌वकश् त‌नहीሻ ‌चकु ाता‌ह‌ै तो‌आप‌क् या‌करते‌है ,oया‌अपनी‌वकश् त‌पቚ ा् करने‌हेतु‌क् या‌करते‌है,oया‌अपनी‌वकश् त‌पቚ ा् ‌करने‌हेतु‌क् या‌पቚ वቅया‌अपनाते‌ह।ै ‌उ्ቈ र‌सर, हम‌के वल‌समूह‌के ‌मुजखि या‌व‌अन् य‌सदस् यो‌आगቇ ह‌करते‌ह‌ै वक‌वह‌समय‌से‌वकश् त‌चुकाए, इसके ‌अलावा‌हम‌कोई‌पቚ वቅया‌नहीሻ ‌अपनाते‌।‌पቚ श् न‌क् या‌वकश् त‌चुकाने‌के ‌जलए‌कोई‌स् थान तय‌होता‌ह।ै ‌उ्ቈ र‌नहीሻ ‌सर‌समूह‌की‌कोई‌भी‌मवहला‌अन् य‌मवहलाओं‌से‌वकश् त‌का‌पैसा हइकटा‌कर‌बक‌आकर‌हर‌महीने‌ 20oतारीखि ‌को‌जमा‌कर‌देती,oपरन् तु‌यवद‌कोई‌मेम् बर अपनी‌वकश् त‌नहीሻ ‌देती‌ह‌ै तो‌ऐसी‌बस् थवत‌मे‌समूह‌की‌अन् य‌मवहलाए‌अपनी‌इच् छा‌से धनरावश‌जमा‌कर‌उकሹ ‌मेम् बर‌की‌वकश् त‌को‌पूरा‌कर‌देती‌ह।ै

4.oउकሹ ‌बयान‌गवाह‌के ‌अवलोकन‌से‌यह‌स् पषቖ ‌होता‌ह‌ै वक‌तथाकजथत‌घटना‌मे‌आवेदक की‌कोई‌वववशषቖ ‌भूवमका‌नहीሻ ‌ह‌ै न‌ही‌मृतका‌ने‌आवेदक‌पर‌कोई‌पቚ त् यकቌ ‌आरोप‌लगाया‌ह।ै आवेदक‌वनदरኘ ष‌ह‌ै तथा‌वह‌इस‌पቚ करण‌मे‌वद०‌ 18.07.2023oसे‌कारागार‌मे‌वनरु दቍ ‌है इसजलए‌आवेदक‌को‌जमानत‌पर‌छोड़ ‌वदया‌जाय

5.oववदान‌अपर‌शासकीय‌अजधवकሹ ा‌ने‌आवेदक‌के ‌ववदान‌अजधवकሹ ा‌के ‌तकरኘ ‌का‌पቚ बल ह रववरोध‌करते‌हए‌तक‌पቚ स् तुत‌वकया‌वक‌आवेदक‌दारा‌काररत‌अपराध‌संजेय‌एवं‌गम्ं भीर पቚ कृ वत‌का‌ह,ै oइसजलए‌आवेदक‌को‌जमानत‌पर‌न‌छोड़ ा‌जाये।

6.oआवेदक‌के ‌ववदान‌अजधवकሹ ा‌के ‌तकरኘ ‌के ‌पररपቚ ेकኚ य‌मे‌पतावली‌पर‌उपलब् ध‌सारवानं तथ् योሱ ‌एवं‌पररबस् थवतयोሱ ‌का‌समगቇ ‌रू प‌से‌अवलोकन‌करने‌के ‌बाद ,oसबूतोሱ ‌की‌पቚ कृ वत‌और वकसी‌भी‌ठोस‌ववरोधात् मक‌सामगቇ ी‌की‌अनुपबस् थवत‌एवं‌उपलब् ध‌सामगቇ ी‌से‌छेड़ छाड़ ‌की संभावना‌न‌होने‌के ‌तथ् य‌को‌देखि ते‌हहए‌मेरी‌राय‌मे‌आवेदक‌को‌जमानत‌पर‌मुकሹ ‌करने‌का उपयकሹु ‌आधार‌ह।ै

7.oअतः‌वाद‌के ‌गुण‌दोष‌पर‌वबना‌कोई‌वटप् पणी‌वकए‌हहए‌आवेदक‌को‌उपरोकሹ ‌ववणरत अपराध‌मे‌संबंजधत‌न् यायालय‌की‌सन् तुवषቖ ‌पर‌व् यवकሹ गत‌बंध-पत‌एवं‌अजधक‌धनरावश‌के ‌दो स् थानीय‌पቚ वतभू‌पቚ स् तुत‌करने‌पर‌वनम् नजलजखि त‌शतरኘ ‌के ‌साथ‌जमानत‌पर‌छोड़ ‌वदया‌जाय।ं

1.oआवेदक‌वववेचना‌या‌परीकቌ ण‌के ‌दौरान‌अवभयोजन‌साकኚ योሱ ‌के ‌साथ‌छेड़ छाड़ ‌नहीሻ ‌करगे ा।

¶2आववेदक अवभयरोजन समाव्ቌयोሱ व पलीवड़रमा / वशकमायरकरमार करो ቄኌरमायवेरमा/धमकमायवेरमा नहीሻ।

¶3आववेदक न्यमायमालय कवे आदवेशोሱ कमा पमालन करवेरमा, वह परली्ቌर कवे ददौरमान वबनमा करोई अनमावश्यक स्ररन जलए वनयर वरजर पर न्यमायमालय मम उपणस्रर हरोरमा ररमा परली्ቌर मम ईममानदमारली सवे सहयरोर करवेरमा।

¶4आववेदक जममानर पर ररहमा हरोनवे कवे बमाद जममानर ककी स्वरदंतरमा कमा दनुरूपयरोर नहली करवेरमा और वकसली भली अपरमाजधक रवरववजध मम जल्቎ नहीሻ हरोरमा न करोई अपरमाजधक कमृत्य करवेरमा।

¶5आववेदक ्ቚत्य्ቌ यमा अ्ቚत्य्ቌ रूप सवे ममामलवे कवे रथ्योሱ सवे पररवचर वकसली भली व्यव्ሹ यमा पनुजलस अजधकमाररयोሱ करो करोई ्ቚलरोभन यमा धमककी नहीሻ दवेरमा न हली उनसवे करोई वमायदमा करवेरमा, जजसकवे कमारर उन्हम न्यमायमालय मम रथ्योሱ करो उजमारर करनवे सवे ववरर रहनमा पड़वे उपररो्ሹ शरቖኘदं मम सवे वकसली कवे उलदंघन कवे ममामलवे मम, परली्ቌर न्यमायमालय आववेदक ककी जममानर वनयममाननुसमार र्ቌ करनवे करो स्वरदंत हहै।" On the above premise, it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of aforementioned named/charge-sheeted co-accused Anuj. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which the case of present applicant could be so distinguished from aforesaid named/charge-sheeted but bailed out co-accused so as to deny him bail. On the basis of above, he contends that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail order of aforesaid named/charge-sheeted but bailed out co-accused, the applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations made in the first information report are wholly false and concocted. The loan amount given by HDFC Bank must have been credited in the bank account of the lessee/borrower i.e. wife of the deceased. In view of above, the allegations made in the FIR that applicant misappropriated the loan amount, inasmuch as, the said amount was not received by the deceased is clearly unsustainable. He further contends that though the applicant is a named/charge-sheeted accused yet he is liable to the enlarged on bail. The present case is a case of suicidal death and therefore covered under Section 306 IPC. An offence under Section 306 IPC is to be examined on a conjoint reading of Sections 107 and 306 IPC. Upto this stage, there is no such material on the basis of which instigation, conspiracy or abetment can be inferred against applicant. Moreover, there is nothing on record which may go to show that the deceased committed suicide on account of an immediate act of applicant nor any instigation can be inferred against the applicant from his conduct. An offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC is subject to trial evidence. To buttress his submissions, he has referred to the following judgements :-Sarvesh Vs. State of U.P. 2018 ADJ Online 0163 and that of the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2020 (10) SCC 200; Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. (2021) 13 SCC 806; Mirza Iqbal Vs. State of U.P. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1251 and Sabitri Samantaray Vs. State of Odisha 2022 SCC OnLine SC 673; and Kashibai & Others Vs. The State of Karnataka (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8584/2022). On the basis of above, it is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Even otherwise, the applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. He is in jail since 26.06.2023. As such, he has undergone more than five months of incarceration. The police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC i.e. charge-sheet has already been submitted against the applicant therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged on record on the basis of which it can be said that custodial arrest of applicant is absolutely necessary during the pendency of trial. It is thus urged that the 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. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named/charge-sheeted accused inasmuch as the charge-sheet has been submitted against applicant on 18.08.2023 therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that the allegations made in the FIR prima facie do not inspire confidence for want of necessary details, even otherwise as per the averments made in the FIR it cannot be said that applicant has abeted, instigated or conspired in the commission of crime in question, none of the ingredients of Section 107 IPC are satisfied against applicant up to this stage, there is nothing on record to indicate abetment, instigation or conspiracy against applicant or the deceased committed suicide on account of an immediate act of applicant, more over, an offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC is subject to trial evidence, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC i.e. charge-sheet has already been submitted against the applicant, therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, yet in spite of above the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from record necessitating custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 Livelaw SC 373 (Paragraph 5), therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail but, without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Shyam Singh, involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

(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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him 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. However, 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 :- 7.12.2023. Rks. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad