Allowed

Deepak v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2018BAIL/39998/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving attacks and injury to multiple persons. The court considered rival medical reports, a cross case, and severity of injuries before ordering release personally bonded.

What did the court decide?

Let applicant Deepak be released on bail in Case Crime No. 398 of 2016 on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount.

Deepak Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 57

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39998 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Deepak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Dwivedi,Kashif Zaidi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Pandey,Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.

¶5

Sri S.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of complainant by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, one of the counsel for the complainant is also taken on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not proposing to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant.

¶8

Heard Shri B.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ram Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Shiromani Shukla, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Sri S.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsels for the complainant and perused the record.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 398 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 354 and 506 I.P.C, Police Station - Etmadpur, District - Agra, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶10

The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and in jail since 17.11.2016. It is further submitted on behalf of applicant that there is cross case between the parties. In the incident wife of applicant Rubi has received six injuries on the upper part of her body in the shape of contusions and multiple contusions etc on her chest, breast etc and one Pankaj from the side of applicant has also received eight injuries on scalp, chest etc. in the shape of contusions as is evident from Annexure No. 9 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant's side has lodged cross case by means of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in which though after investigation final report was filed

¶11

but ultimately it was rejected and complainant side was summoned vide order dated 18.09.2017 (a certified copy whereof has been produced before the Court during course of arguments which is taken on record), from the complainant side only Rahul has recieved one gun shot injury on his head and six persons have been assigned general role in the incident, the applicant is in jail since 17.11.2016, in these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsels for complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant on the grounds that after lodging of FIR of the case, the applicant's side has lodged eight wrong and false criminal cases against the complainant side including the alleged cross case of the present incident. In this respect, an enquiry was conducted under the instructions of D.I.G. Police, by Dr. S.P. Singh, the then S.P. (Traffic) and in that it was found that all the above cases have been lodged to exert pressure on the complainant side, as is evident from annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit. It is also clear from the answer obtained under RTI (Annexure No. CA-5 to Counter affidavit) that applicant has never got himself medically examined at the hospital concerned on 02.10.2016 and he has received no injury on the date in question. The applicant has been assigned specific role of causing fire arm injury to the injured, the injured was operated and he is still not in normal position, whereas injuries sustained by applicant's side are neither serious in nature nor dangerous to life.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, ground that allegedly there is cross case between the parties and both sides have received injuries, wife of applicant and one Pankaj from the side of applicant have received injuries in large number on vital parts of their body and the applicant is in jail since 17.11.2016, as well as totality of fact and circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Let applicant Deepak be released on bail in Case Crime No. 398 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 354 and 506 I.P.C, Police Station - Etmadpur, District - Agra, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(1) Applicant will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of

¶16

bail.

¶17

(2) Applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.

¶18

(3) Applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶19

(4) During pendency of the aforesaid case, the applicant shall appear on 23rd day of each month before the Police Station concerned to get his attendance registered.

¶20

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶21

A copy of this order shall be provided to the learned A.G.A. for information and necessary compliance.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.2.2018

¶23

A. Verma

Deepak v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sada Shiv Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Maurya Vs Mansha Devi and 2 Others

Kendra Pal Vs State of U.P.

Ajab Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shoaib Vs State of U.P.

Asif and Another Vs State of U.P.