In a bail application regarding an assault causing grievous hurt by firearm, the High Court Justice rejected the plea, noting sufficient evidence including recovery of weapon, and directed the trial Court to expedite proceedings.
Bail application rejected; trial directed to be expedited.
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. - 35261 of 2019
Applicant :- Ankush @ Lakshmi Chand Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Dhar Dwivedi
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ankush @ Lakshmi Chand with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 148 of 2019, under Sections 307 I.P.C., Police Station- Nigohi, District- Shahjahanpur , during pendency of trial.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case, due to ulterior motive. As per the allegation made in FIR, on 21.04.2019 in the evening, when the informant was at his house, his son Ankush @ Lakhimchand, his wife Maya Devi and his other son Khan Singh had exerted pressure upon the informant to sell certain property. Since the informant did not concede to their demand of selling property, he was not given food and then the informant was beaten by all the three accused persons and they also used abusive language against him. Thereafter, on 22.04.2019 in the morning, when the informant was doing his daily routine work at about 05:30 a.m., the coaccused Khan Singh and Maya Devi caught hold of the informant and the applicant had attacked him by firearm weapon, which hit him on the right side of his chest. It is further argued that the statement of the injured has been recorded in which he has supported the prosecution case. The applicant is the son of informant and due to property dispute, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one and is languishing in jail since 18.05.2019. There is no possibility of the applicant 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.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the present application for bail and contended that in the present case, the injured has brutally assaulted by the accused persons. It is further submitted that the applicant is the main person, who is fired upon the injured, due to which he sustained serious injuries. It is further submitted that the injured has sustained injuries on the right side of his chest, which is vital part of the body, hence the same is dangerous to life. As per the injury report, there was entry and exit wound present on the right side of his chest. It is further submitted that the injured has supported the prosecution version in his statement as narrated in the F.I.R. and also the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant only. It is also pointed out that the recovery of one country made pistol 315 bore and one live cartridge have been made from the possession of the applicant. Thus, there is sufficient evidence available on record against the applicant with regard to the heinous crime committed by him, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as considering the complicity of the accused, 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 directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously 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.
Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 6.11.2019 JK Yadav
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite serious injuries sustained by the informant from a firearm assault.
Whether the present bail conditions satisfy the requirements of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases involving grave offences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and anotherReferred¶10
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440 · Who else cites this
Ankush @ Lakshmi Chand
State of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
