The Single Judge rejected a bail application filed by an accused charged with attempting to murder, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation. The court found no grounds to exercise discretion in favor of the applicant and directed the trial court to expedite proceedings.
Bail application rejected; no relief granted to the applicant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10563 of 2019
Applicant :- Sonu @ Pravesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Yadav,Neeraj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,D K Agrahari
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.K. Agrahari, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Sonu @ Pravesh Kumar with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.168 of 2018, under Sections 308, 325, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahar.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is next argued that the FIR has been lodged by informant Anil Kumar alleging therein that on 16.08.2018 at about 11 p.m. when he was sleeping on the roof on his tubewell, the applicant came along with co-accused Sagar and after awaking him asked for beedi which was given by the informant and after taking the same they started scolding him regarding the fact that why he does not give water of his tubewell to their friend Balveer, on which the informant stated that in this matter he would talk in the morning as the accused were in drunken position, on which accused Sagar came down from stairs and instigated the applicant to throw him down. Thereafter accused Sonu after putting his hands between the legs of the informant pushed him down from the roof. Coaccused Balbeer and Babu were also standing there. The applicant Sonu, co-accused Sagar and Balbeer started beating the informant by stick of spade, due to which the informant started shouting and hearing the noise the people gathered there. The injured has sustained injuries on his backbone, his neck and hands. It is next contended that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.09.2018. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by
contending that as per the statement of the injured, the role of pushing him down from the roof of tubewell has been assigned to applicant whereas co-accused Balveer and Babu with whom the applicant is claiming parity has been assigned the role of causing injury by spade. As per injury report, there is ribs of eoraft ulna respinfication & radius dislocated and cervical spinal injury which appears to be caused by the applicant. The role of the applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused Balbeer and Babu. The applicant has thrown the injured on the roof of tubewell due to which he has suffered cervical spinal injury.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application stands rejected.
However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same as expeditious, as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicant fully cooperates in conclusion of the trial.
Office is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned Court below forthwith.
It is clarified that any observations, if any, made by this Court are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 2.8.2019 Anand Sri./-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant bail to the applicant accused of offences under Sections 308, 325, and 504 IPC.
Whether the trial court is required to expedite the trial of the impugned case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and anotherReferred¶11
AIR 2018 (SC) 2440 · Who else cites this
Sonu @ Pravesh Kumar
State Of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
