Allowed

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2021BAIL/39251/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application in a criminal proceeding under sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. Finding a contradiction between the injured's statement regarding a sharp weapon and the medical opinion attributing injuries to a blunt object, the court held a prima facie case for bail and granted release subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount furnished to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39251 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case No. 65/IX/2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 02 of 2021, under Section 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. registered at P.S.- Mataundh, DistrictBanda.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegation against the applicant in the F.I.R. is that he has assaulted the injured by a sharp edged weapon (banka), no such offence as alleged in the F.I.R. has occurred. The allegations levelled against the applicant are fully false and baseless and no case under aforementioned Sections is made out against him. Delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.01.2021.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for complainant, opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. as on the same very day when the incident took place, the complainant moved an application before concerned SHO and NCR was registered. Further submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured are grievous in nature.

¶9

Nature of accusation, evidence collected by I.O. in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of punishment in case of conviction, complicity of the accused and all other attending circumstances were duly considered.

¶10

Perusal of the record reveals that the injured in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that the applicant hit him on his head by banka. In the injury report, as

¶11

per the opinion of doctor, the injuries sustained to the injured have been caused by hard and blunt object, thus, statement of injured is contradictory with the injury report of the injured.

¶12

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that there is contradiction between medical evidence and statement of injured, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Ajay Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶17

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

¶18

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.12.2021 VPS

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahid Vs State of U.P.

Brajmohan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Phoolchand Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Saini Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P.