Satya Rai @ Golu Vs State of U.P.

¶1

Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17944 of 2023 Applicant :- Satya Rai @ Golu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Rai

¶2

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶3

Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR has been lodged on 10.11.2022 in respect of an incident of the same day with the allegation that in the early hours of 10.11.2022, applicant has break into the house of informant for the purpose of theft and when the informant and his family members woke up, they tried to stop, then he assaulted, as a result of same, Jamwant Rai has suffered injury. It is submitted that applicant is having an affair with the daughter of informant and on the aforesaid basis, on several occasion, negotiations have taken place to settle the matter. It is submitted that on account of aforesaid fact, present FIR has been lodged against applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the injury report of the injured Jamwant Rai to submit that there is one lacerated wound on the scalp of head which is 1.5 x 1 cm. The doctor has advised X-ray/NCCT of head to rule out any internal head injury. However, the injured person has refused to get the X-ray done. It is submitted that non production of injured for X-ray is a circumstance, which would demonstrate that the injuries were not serious nature. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged on distorted fact. It is further submitted that the recovery of alleged weapon has been made on 19.3.2023 although the offence is of 10.11.2022. It is submitted that it is highly improbable that the applicant will keep the weapon with him for such a long time so as to facilitate the police authorities to recover the weapon. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated solely on account of love affair of the daughter of informant with the applicant. The applicant has explained his criminal history in paragraph 15 and 16 of the affidavit. Applicant is languishing in jail since 19.3.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶6

Learned counsel for informant submits that applicant has committed the house break and injured one Jamwant Rai, who is relative of informant. It is submitted that Jamwant Rai has suffered one lacerated wound in the alleged occurrence. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the informant that the recovery of weapon was made on 19.3.2023 and it is also not disputed by learned counsel that the X-ray of injured was not done.

¶7

On a pointed query being made to learned counsel for the informant as to why despite the instruction of examining doctor X- ray of the informant was not done, learned counsel for the informant submits that the injuries were not of such nature, as would have required X-ray. However, he submits that the injury itself is a pointer that the offence has been committed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the informant further submits that under Section 458 IPC, maximum punishment is 14 years.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶10

Learned AGA has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the Applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:

¶11

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a historysheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶12

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶13

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the

¶14

Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶15

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another , 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶16

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶18

It is to be seen that both the applicant and informant belong to same village. The question of house breaking and theft have been raised in the FIR and the allegation is that the informant had woke up when the applicant entered into the house and, thereafter, applicant has assaulted the injured Jamwant Rai. The injuries of Jamwant Rai are simple in nature. Although X-ray was advised to rule out any internal head injury, however, injured has not produced himself for X-ray examination, as has been admitted by learned counsel for the informant. Even according to learned counsel for the informant, injuries were not of such nature as would have required any X-ray. Learned counsel for the informant has not demonstrated that the injured in any manner has been admitted to the hospital or any serious injuries has been caused. The recovery of weapon has been made on 19.3.2023 after about 4 months from the date of incident. It is highly improbable that the applicant will keep the weapon of offence with him for such a long period in order to facilitate the police authorities to recover the aforesaid.

¶19

It is further to be seen that although Section 458 IPC prescribes the maximum punishment of 14 years, however, the discretion is with the court concerned.

¶20

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of injuries sustained by the injured 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.

¶22

Let the applicant Satya Rai @ Golu involved in Case Crime No.115 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 458 IPC, Police Station Revatipur, District Ghazipur 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:-

¶23

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶24

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

5 . 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.

¶28

The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶29

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

¶30

Order Date :- 1.5.2023

¶31

D. Tamang

¶32

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satya Rai @ Golu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Rai @ Golu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. through its Secretary (Home)

Radheshyam Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Gulab Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harshdeep Singh Vs State of U.P.

Khurseed Ansari Vs State of U.P. and Another