Bail application allowed in a case involving assault resulting in death. Court held it is a fit case for bail considering no independent evidence against the applicant and compliance with bail conditions.
Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties with specified conditions.
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. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14908 of 2019
Applicant :- Ravi Kant Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Raj Singh Tomar,Kavita Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri K.P. Tiwari, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against five accused persons, namely Surendra, Shiv Naresh, Puran, Shivpal Singh and Ravikant alleging that on 24.8.2018 they assaulted Ram Khilawan with lathi-danda, he received five injuries, resultantly died. Specific role of assault was assigned to co-accused Puran.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused namely Surendra has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.2.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6109 of 2019, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There are general allegations against all accused persons except co-accused Puran. Main role of assault was assigned to co-accused Puran. The case of applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Puran. There is no independent witness and no legal evidence against the applicant. Nothing was recovered from the possession of applicant. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 31.1.2019 (more than two months) having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the
Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let applicant Ravi Kant involved in Case Crime No. 308 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 304 IPC, Police Station Rura, District Kanpur Dehat be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 10.4.2019 A. Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in cases under Sections 304 IPC involving assault resulting in death.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravi Kant
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
