Single judge allowed bail application. Court held after considering totality of facts, including no prior record and recovery by private party, that the case was fit for grant of bail subject to conditions.
Application allowed; applicant released on bail under personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38323 of 2021
Applicant :- Sumit Bajpai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Tripathi,Siya Ram Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Siya Ram Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State through video conferencing and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant- Sumit Bajpai under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 109 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 304, 406, 411 of the I.P.C. and Section 51(B) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 registered at Police Station Bithoor, District Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial.
Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 27.04.2021 was lodged by one Dushyant Shukla, Unit Head, Rama Medical College alleging therein that on 26.04.2021, Ram Gopal aged about 70 years and Nitish Awasthi aged about 21 years were admitted in the hospital in I.C.U. at about 09.30 p.m. due to their being tested corona positive for their treatment. On 26.04.2021 at about 09.30 p.m., the first informant had given two remdesivir injections to the security guard to I.C.U. to give the same to the applicant for the patients, which were taken by the first informant from the pharmacy of the hospital and the same were said to be injected to both the patients. As a matter of fact, the applicant kept the said injections with intention to grab them. After duty shift was over, the security guard, on search being made, the aforesaid remdesivir injections were found kept in the pocket of the applicant. On account of injection not injected to both the patients, one of them namely Ram Gopal died on 27.04.2021 at about 02.00 a.m.
After lodging the first information report on 27.04.2021, the statement of first informant and the statement of security guard were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 27.04.2021. After recording the statement of first informant and security guard the applicant was arrested on 28.04.2021.
He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;
(a) The alleged recovery of injections were made by private party.
(b)The applicant has been awarded as corona warriors by the Rama Hospital.
(c) The family members of the deceased has not made any complaint against the applicant as well as against the hospital.
It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.
Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.
Let applicant, Sumit Bajpai be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) 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.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.
The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance of law after the release of the applicant, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 2018 SC 2440 , if there is no other legal impediment.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning
the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 2.2.2022 SK Srivastava
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in a case involving offences of death by negligence, criminal breach of trust, cheating, under disaster management laws.
Whether the absence of prior criminal record and recovery of evidence by a private party makes the case fit for bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ BaliayReferred¶16
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 · Who else cites this
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra PradeshReferred¶16
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 · Who else cites this
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors.Referred¶16
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598 · Who else cites this
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr.Referred¶16
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 · Who else cites this
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr.Referred¶16
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 · Who else cites this
Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr.Referred¶25
Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 2018 SC 2440 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Sumit Bajpai
State of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
Parties & counsel
