Allowed

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2021BAIL/14975/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application filed by Shiv Kumar in a criminal case involving sections 326, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. Relying on the reformative theory of punishment and Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court found it to be a case of bail and ordered his release subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, with verification of sureties and specific conditions.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14975 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajiv Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 133 of 2020, under Sections- 326, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Gohan, District- Jalaun, during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. As per the FIR, the applicant along with his wife Vijama started abusing the informant and thereafter assaulted him with the help of lathis and danddas as a result thereof, informant sustained serious head injury as well as eye injury. The report with regard to the head injury is not available on record. As per the medical report of G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur, the informant was admitted on 29.9.2021 and discharged on 1.10.2020 with the satisfactory result and he was advised to wear black glasses in order to avoid sunlight and dust, which will keep his eyes clean. It is further contended that as per the report further, it is mentioned that matter was referred to the higher centre of AIIMS, New Delhi but it appears that the informant has not gone to AIIMS for further treatment as advised. It is next contented that the informant instead of approaching the AIIMS and approached Dr. Shroff's Charity Eye Hospital, New Delhi, the medical report of the said hospital as appended at page no. 8 to the counter affidavit. The relevant portion of the final report of Dr. Shroff's Charity Eye Hospital, New Delhi is as under:-

¶8

" In view of persisting infection, RE exenteration was done on 29.10.2020 Exenterated tissue was sent for histopathological examination and microbiological evaluation. Same treatment was continued till fungal culture showed growth of Mucor

¶9

species. Patient was started on i.v. injection of liposomal and Apmphotericin B 150 mg twice daily from 2.11.2020 for mucor species. Patient complained of bloody nasal discharged from right nasal cavity for three days. ENT opinion was done, old CT and MRI reviewed nil ENT intervention was planned. LFT and KFT evaluation was done. Milo derangement in LFT recorded and tab Eustuchul was started from physician opinion. Patient is continued on treatment with liposomal amphotericin B injection twice daily."

¶10

Apart from the aforesaid report there is no other medical report available on record. It is next contended that initially the FIR was lodged under Section 324 IPC which was subsequently converted under Section 326 IPC and charge-sheet has been submitted Sections- 326, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. It is next submitted that co-accused Vijama has been exonerated from the case and final report has already been submitted against her. It is next submitted that the offence is triable by Magistrate and the applicant is in jail since 30.11.2020 (almost one year) and has no criminal history and if he is released on bail, there is no chance of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that due such act the informant has lost his eye sight and the applicant is not entitled for any indulgence.

¶12

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail. The application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant, Shiv Kumar who is involved in 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶15

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶16

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶17

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

¶18

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶19

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶21

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶22

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

Order Date :- 4.10.2021 Akbar

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nafees Vs State of U.P.

Pintoo Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Chhatrapal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar @ Adarsh Vs State of U.P.

Gulam Navi Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P.