Om Mishra v. State of U.P

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52229 of 2023 Applicant :- Om Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Shukla,Sr. Advocate 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 injured was misbehaving with two girls, who were sisters of the applicant and when the applicant went to talk to the injured not to disturb the peaceful living of two sisters, the incident has occurred and both the sides have suffered injuries. It is submitted that the dispute has arisen on account of mis-behaviour being extended by the injured to the two girls and two girls have lodged the complaint with the police authorities in this respect. It is submitted that neither any statement of doctor has been recorded nor there is any X-ray report in respect of injuries sustained by the injured nor the injuries sustained by the applicant has been explained by the prosecution. It is submitted that it is the duty of the prosecution to explain the injury caused to the accused person, however, no such explanation has been offered. It is submitted that the dispute has arisen at the spur of the moment. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 7.9.2023 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, however, does not dispute the fact that the statement of doctor has not been recorded nor X-ray has been done in the present case.

¶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 dispute has arisen on account of fact that injured was mis-behaving with the two girls and the applicant intervened in the matter as a result of same, both sides have sustained injuries. It is not shown by the prosecution that injuries were life threatening.

¶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 Om Mishra involved in Case Crime No.334 of 2023, under Sections 307, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines,District Prayagraj 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 :- 13.12.2023 D. Tamang High Court of Judicature at Allahabad