Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 891 (ALL)

Indra Kumar @ Puttan v. State of U. P.

2018-04-12

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J. 1. This second bail application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 815 of 2016, u/ss. 302/34 I.P.C. and 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Bilhaur, District- Kanpur Dehat. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 8.5.2017 on merits. 2. Heard Sri Viresh Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mr Syed Taj Mohammad Rizvi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has once again tried to reiterate the merits of the case and in addition to it has been submitted that after rejection of the bail on 8.4.2017 the trial has not made any substantial progress and therefore, on the ground of period of detention, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. 6. The perusal of the earlier bail rejection order reveals that the merits of the case have already been gone into by the Court and it was not found fit to release the applicant on bail as there was specific convincing evidence to the effect that the applicant fired at the deceased causing firearm wounds to him which resulted in his death. Law on this point is too well settled to be elaborated upon at any length. Merits of the case cannot be considered again and again. This Court does not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail even now. So far as the delay in conclusion of trial and the period of detention are concerned, in a case of this nature it cannot be said to be so long drawn out which, by itself, may constitute any legitimate ground to release the accused on bail. 7. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. 8. Order on Short Term Bail (Parole) Application No. 3/18. 9. This short term bail (parole) application has been moved by the applicant to release him on bail for a period of two months to attend the marriage of his brother and also to console his shocked old parents during pendency of his trial in Case Crime No. 815 of 2016, under Section 302/34 I.P.C. & 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. - Bilhaur, District- Kanpur Dehat. 10. 10. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. 11. The first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected earlier. Today, the second bail application was also heard and rejected in the wake of the applicant being the principal offender of the case causing firearm injury to the deceased which resulted in his death. There is sufficient evidence available against the applicant and in a case of this gravity, such kind of grounds as have been placed on behalf of accused do not appear to be sufficient to release him on short term parole. 12. When this Court hears the matter of bail pertaining to any accused there are many considerations which weigh with the Court on the basis of which his bail application is allowed or rejected. The gravity of charge, the nature of accusation and the sufficiency of evidence collected during the course of investigation against him, the possibility of his tempering with the evidence and the chances of his fleeing away from the course of justice are some of the relevant considerations to be looked into by the Court which may be germane to decide whether bail is to be rejected or to be allowed. In the cases where the Court decides not to grant bail to the accused because of convincing sufficient material available against him in proof of the charge then in such circumstances his continuation in jail cannot be said to be not in according to the procedure prescribed by law. It is so obvious that when liberty of the accused is curtailed it naturally has to result in so many discomforts and in deprivation of so many privileges which a free man would otherwise enjoy. Whenever an accused is sent to or detained in jail, even though he is kept behind the bars because of his own criminal conduct, but the inevitable inconvenience and the resultant emotional hurt caused to his family members cannot be avoided. Ultimately the Court has to strike a balance between the liberty of the accused and the equally important judicial accountability to preserve social defence. The loss of life of deceased and the emotional injury caused to the bereaved members of his family after his death is no less important and has to be kept in perspective. Ultimately the Court has to strike a balance between the liberty of the accused and the equally important judicial accountability to preserve social defence. The loss of life of deceased and the emotional injury caused to the bereaved members of his family after his death is no less important and has to be kept in perspective. Submissions made by the counsel have been harnessed to address the sentimental facets of the Court, but this Court cannot allow itself to be swept off its feet under any vague sentimentalism. If the courts would allow themselves to buckle under such emotional appeals and be guided by such considerations the cause of justice may fall prey. The Courts have to be stern when required just as they should not be averse to being soft and humane where it may be justified. In the case at hand, this Court does not see any such exigency which may persuade this Court to release the applicant on short term parole in the wake of sufficient evidence on record showing himself to be the author of death caused to the deceased. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the short term parole application stands rejected.