Allowed

Ramavtar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2023BAIL/11721/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail application for Ramavtar accused of causing death via electric discharge. Court relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding presumption of innocence and prolonged detention, granting bail with standard conditions despite the serious nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in a fixed amount subject to verified conditions.

Ramavtar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:123874

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11721 of 2023 Applicant :- Ramavtar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sarita Dwivedi,Puran Nath Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

In this case, it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that electric current was released in the boundary from the field of the accused applicant which touched the deceased Dharamveer when he had gone to his field, which resulted into his death on 27.12.2022 at about 11:00 p.m. F.I.R. was lodged on 28.12.2022 and after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no offence has been committed by the accused applicant and if the prosecution case is taken as a whole the maximum sentence will be awarded within the purview of Section 304-A I.P.C. There is no eye-witness of the offence and as per F.I.R, the informant or his any family members were not present at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that there are many shareholders in the adjoining fields and electric wire was fixed by the accused-applicant in the boundary of his field. Accused applicant has been attributed no motive to commit the alleged crime and due to animosity of some land dispute, accusedapplicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is languishing in jail since 24.12.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that sufficient evidence against the accused applicant has been collected during the course of investigation regarding commission of offence. It is further submitted that in the postmortem report, the cause of death has been found as shock due to electric current. It is further submitted that the current was deliberately released in the boundary of the field by the accused-applicant, hence, he is not entitled for bail.

¶9

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶11

"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶12

7. In Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

¶13

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

¶14

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

¶15

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

¶16

In this matter, as is evident from the record that applicant is in jail since 24.12.2022. Hence, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases as well as in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 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 .

¶17

Let the applicant Ramavtar involved in Case Crime No.749 of 2022, under Section 304 IPC, P.S. Faridpur, District - Bareilly 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶18

(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶24

It is made clear that the submissions and observations made in this order are only for deciding the bail application. Trial Court while deciding the trial will not be influenced with the same.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.6.2023 m.a.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AYYUB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramavtar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramavtar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharamveer Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Yadav @ Monu Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Mithlesh Vs State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov of Up Lucknow

Sudama Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and 3 Others