The court allowed bail in an attempt to murder case. It noted a discrepancy between the FIR alleging two shots fired and the medical report showing only one injury, deeming the applicant's role unreliable.
Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding tampering with evidence and cooperation in trial.
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. - 22
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29348 of 2018
Applicant :- Anshul Patel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Pratap Pandey,Abhishek Kumar Shukla,Radhey Shyam Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shishir Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accusedapplicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 402 of 2018 under Section 307 I.P.C. Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the F.I.R. and statement of the victim recorded under Section 161, two shots are alleged to have been fired at by one Prem Shankar and other by the present applicant. Victim himself clearly states that fire shot at by Prem Shankar hit the right side of his neck and another shot fired at by the present applicant hit the left side of his neck. But, on perusal of the medical report, it is apparently clear that only one injury was found on the right side of the neck when the victim was medically examined, hence, the role of opening fire assigned to the present applicant is not reliable. The applicant is in jail since 30.4.2018 and if he is granted liberty, he will not misuse the same.
Learned A.G.A. and Sri Shishir Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant have admitted the fact that as per injury report, there is only one firearm injury the right side of the neck and there is no such injury on the left side of neck. Under the circumstance, it is a good case for bail. No benefit can be granted to the other co-accused of this case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Anshul Patel involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that the trial may be directed to be expeditiously concluded. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to expedite the hearing of the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 24.4.2019
Ram Murti
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the accused is entitled to bail when there is a discrepancy between the FIR allegations of firing two shots and the medical report showing only one injury.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anshul Patel
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
