Allowed

Rajmangal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2020BAIL/6029/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the court granted bail to an accused involved in a violent clash where injuries were alleged on both sides, noting that unexplained injuries on seven persons from the accused side indicated potential prosecution concealment.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and non-interference.

Rajmangal Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6029 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rajmangal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Bhushan Kunwar,Kamal Krishna (Senior Advocate) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bansh Gopal Mishra,Santosh Kumar Upadhyay

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Shashi Bhushan Kunwar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bansh Gopal Mishra and Sri Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsels for the first informant and learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Rajmangal seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with case crime No.146 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 302 and 324 I.P.C., P.S. Ubhaon, District Ballia.

¶7

Learned senior counsel argued that the present case has a cross version also. There are as many as seven persons including the applicant who have received injuries. The said persons are Vinay Kumar, Ajeet, Nandlal, Sunita, Kavita, Dhirendra and the applicant-Raj Mangal.

¶8

He further argued that the matter is such in which the injuries as received by seven persons from the side of the accused have not been explained or have not been said in the first information report or by witnesses, the prosecution has concealed the factum of the incident and has not come up with clean hands. The injuries of the injured persons have been placed before the

¶9

Court and it has been argued that some of the injuries of some accused persons are on vital parts of the body being abdomen area and head which cannot be self inflicted. An attempt to get first information report lodged as a cross case failed. When the said attempt failed then an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been moved by the Smt. Vimla Devi wife of the present applicant. The said application is pending disposal before the concerned court. It is thus argued that the genesis of the incident has been concealed by the prosecution by not disclosing the injuries of the said persons and the version as such cannot be accepted. It is further argued that even as per the prosecution version, general role has been assigned to the applicant.

¶10

He further argued that the applicant is in jail since 06.09.2019 and has no criminal antecedents, therefore, he be released on bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsels for the first informant oppose the prayer for bail and argued that present incident is a case of double murder in which four persons from the side of the prosecution have received serious injuries. Treatment of some of them is still going on. Inspite of the fact that the occurrence was of 07.09.2019, the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been moved at belated stage and is an after thought. Both the parties are relatives and there is no reason for false implication. Bail of co-accused Kavita has been rejected by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.01.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.55867 of 2019.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. also opposes the prayer for bail on the same ground as that of learned counsels for the first informant.

¶13

Learned senior counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon

¶14

paras 14, 15, 17, 21 and 28 of the affidavit wherein all the injuries received from the side of the accused persons are mentioned, the disclosure of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is done along with the said application being annexed as Annexure-10 to the affidavit and a specific case being cross version of the incident is pleaded in paras 21 and 28 has been placed before the Court.

¶15

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that the present case is a case in which both sides have received injuries but the prosecution has not stated about the injuries as received by seven persons from the side of the applicant, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶16

Let the applicant Rajmangal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any

¶21

manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶23

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶24

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶25

The bail application is allowed.

¶26

Order Date :- 24.2.2020

¶27

Asha

¶28

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Rajmangal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajmangal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anit @ Tota Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sewak Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Zakir Vs State of U.P.

Achchhe Hasan @ Najmul Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Reetu Vs State of U.P.