The presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the principle that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception were central to the court's decision.

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 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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. Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel with Mr. Vikas Anand and Ms. Anmol Sandhu, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. Opposing the bail application, Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned counsel for the State, submits that 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., Sukh Pal (co-accused), who was standing in the middle of the road near Valmiki Temple, was asked to move out of the way. Then Sukh Pal (co-accused) 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). The informant’s wife Smt. Renu (PW2) had also reached the spot. 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. 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. Co-accused persons are real brothers of the applicant. The said recovered articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Prosecution has examined five witnesses till date.

4. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, contended that the applicant is an innocent person. He has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Smt. Renu (PW2), the wife of the informant, has not supported the case of the prosecution in her cross-examination. She has stated in her cross-examination that she had not seen any of the accused person assaulting the deceased. Yogesh (PW3), Smt. Mithlesh (PW4) and Sanjeev Kumar (PW5), the alleged eye witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution in their examination-in-chief. Yogesh (PW3) stated that he was not present on the spot at the time of the alleged incident and he did not take the deceased to the hospital. Therefore, in these circumstances, presence of the informant, husband of Smt. Renu (PW2) at the place of the alleged incident is doubtful, and, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory also does not support the case of the prosecution.

5. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, further contended that applicant is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. He has no criminal antecedents, and, he is in custody since 04.09.2019, but, the prosecution has examined only five witnessed out of twenty three witnesses till date.

6. 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.

7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason 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 this stage.

8. The Bail