Allowed

Satish Chandra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2019BAIL/3902/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to applicant in criminal assault case, noting serious injury to victim but lack of specific attribution of injury to applicant, noting applicant's clean record versus informant's history, and finding no risk of absconding or witness tampering despite opposing counsel's objections.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions against tampering, intimidation, and offence.

Satish Chandra Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3902 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Satish Chandra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narayan Singh(Kushwaha) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Sri Pramod Kumar Singh and Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, Advocates have filed their power on behalf of the complainant, the same is taken on record.

¶6

Sri Jitendra Kumar Shishodia has filed his power on behalf of the applicant, the same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State of U.P and perused the material available on record.

¶8

Initially, in this case, the first information report was lodged against four persons and after the medical examination of the victim was conducted at private medical hospital, it was found that the graver injury was only one caused on the head. The statement of the informant side was recorded and in the statement of the victim, name of two culprits were chosen, who caused assault on the head of the injured, whereas there is no specific allegation that who among the accused was in fact the author of that particular injury. Out of the two persons, it cannot be said as to who actually caused the injury on the head of the injured. Applicant does not have any previous antecedent and insofar as the informant is concerned, he has a long criminal history of 26 cases out of which 2 cases relate to Section 302 I.P.C. and about five or more cases relate to Section 307 I.P.C. There is no possibility of the absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The applicant has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 29.10.2018.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Pramod Kumar Singh and Sri. Tripathi B.G. Bhai have opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that it is correct that four persons were initially named but the two persons have been specifically assigned the role of causing head injury which is of serious nature and it may cause paralytic effect in future at any time and the life of the victim has been put to great risk. The injury has been caused by the joint assault and it created single impact and that way both the accused including the applicant are responsible for their criminal act. The applicant has wrongly spelt in paragraph no. 23 of his affidavit that he has no previous criminal history whereas an F.I.R. inter alia under Section - 307 IPC

¶10

against the applicant at Case Crime No.428 of 2017 at Police Station Awagarh, District Etah has been registered against him.

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail. However, he has not disputed the aforesaid facts.

¶12

Without entering into merit of the case but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant - Satish Chandra involved in Case Crime No. 427 of 2017, under Sections - 323, 504, 308 I.P.C., Police Station - Awagarh, District - Etah be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶18

(iv) The applicant will not commit offence.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 29.1.2019

¶21

S Rawat

Satish Chandra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Chandra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Mishra @ Jagannath Vs State of U.P.

Aalok Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Agrahri Vs State of U.P.

Saarik Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mukhtar Vs State of U.P.