Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the purpose of keeping the accused in detention during the trial is to secure their attendance, not punishment.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

Present Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No.461 of 2019 (Sessions Trial No.254 of 2019), registered at police station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. Applicant is in judicial custody under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

3. The First Bail Application (No.1197 of 2020) of the applicant was rejected on 22.06.2021. After the said bail application was rejected, nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the informant Rinku (PW1) was going to his house on a motorcycle with his younger brother Prem Shankar, aged about 19 years, on 01.09.2019. At around 08:30 p.m., present applicant, who was standing in the middle of the road near Valmiki Temple, was asked to move out of the way. Then, the present applicant slapped the informant’s brother. One Chanchal of Chanchal Medical Store intervened. They left their motorcycle near Chanchal Medical Store and went their house. When the informant and his brother Prem Shankar went to take their motorcycle, the present applicant along with two co-accused persons assaulted them with an iron pipe, Patal (sharp edged weapon) and a Gupti (pointed weapon). Yogesh (PW3) and others had come to the spot. The informant along with Yogesh (PW3) had taken Prem Shankar to the hospital, but, he died on the way. The First Information report was lodged by the informant Rinku Kashyap against the present applicant along with co-accused persons, namely, Sukhnandan and Hardev, the brothers of the present applicant-accused. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of the death of the deceased was coma due to head injury. On 04.09.2019, the said Patal, Gupti and a Rod (cable wire) were recovered from the house of the applicant. The said recovered articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

5. Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The informant’s wife Renu (PW2) has stated that she had also followed her husband and brother-in-law (deceased) but she had not seen Prem Shankar (deceased) being beaten by the accused persons. Yogesh (PW3), has stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of the incident and he did not take the injured Prem Shankar to the hospital on the bike with Rinku. Witnesses PW2 to PW9, examined by the prosecution, have not supported the prosecution case. All these witnesses have been declared hostile. The Forensic Science Laboratory’s report also does not support the case of the prosecution. A co-accused of the similar role, namely, Sukhnandan, has already been granted bail by this Court. Applicant is in judicial custody since 04.09.2019. He is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding, and, he has no criminal history.

6. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A., has opposed the bail application. However, he fairly conceded that the prosecution witnesses, PW2 to PW9 did not support the case of the prosecution; the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory does not support the prosecution case, and, the co-accused Sukhnandan has been granted bail by this Court.

7. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at thi