Allowed

Ajay Singh Third Bail v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 May 2022/11145/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder and assault case. Despite an allegation that the applicant overstayed previous interim bail, the court deemed it a fit case for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits, citing allegations of cross-violence.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail allowed; applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to four specific conditions regarding attendance and stay of adjournments.

Ajay Singh Third Bail Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11145 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ajay Singh Third Bail Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lalji Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

2. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.202 of 2015, under Sections 302, 307, 452, 323, 504, 506, 374 IPC, 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶7

3. It is alleged that on 28.05.2015 at around 7:30 P.M. when the father of the complainant was sitting at the door of his house, the accused-applicant, Suneel Singh, Ram Bhuwan Singh and Beenu Singh, came to the house of the complainant armed with lathi, axe, farsha, iron rods and started abusing in the name of mother and sister. They also abused by caste of the accused-applicant and started assaulting father of the complainant. When father of the complainant rushed inside the house to protect himself, the accused-applicant and other coaccused dragged him from the house and assaulted him. When brother of the complainant came to save his father, he was also assaulted badly. Father of the complainant and the brother of the accused-applicant were taken to the hospital. The father died after two days during the course of treatment. Elder brother also died.

¶8

4. Following injuries were allegedly caused by the accused-applicant and other co-accused to two deceased, which are noted in the port mortem report of the deceased:-

¶9

Injuries on Deceased Pyare Lal:-

¶10

(i) wound size about 4 cm x 1 cm on right eye brow;

¶11

(ii) size about 3 x 1 cm on right forehead, 4 cm above injury no.1;

¶12

(iii) size about 3 cm x 1 cm on right side of skull; 3 cm above injury no.2;

¶13

(iv) size about 3 cm x 2 cm on medial side of left thumb; and

¶14

(v) Contusion size about 3 cm x 2 cm on back of right scapula;

¶15

Injuries on Vikram:-

¶16

(i) Stitched wound 4.0 cm left side forehead about 5.00 cm above left eyebrow;

¶17

(ii) Lacerated wound 3.00 cm x 2.00 cm right side upper lip;

¶18

(iii) Abrasion 2.00 cm right side lower lip; and

¶19

(iv) Contused wound 6 cm x 6 cm upper part of right forearm.

¶20

5. Mr.Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been in jail since 15.06.2015 pending trial. The accused-applicant has no criminal history. Both sides have assaulted each other. Accused side also received injuries. Their injury reports have been placed on record. On behalf of the accused-applicant, an FIR was registered, however, police after investigating the offence did not find substance in the FIR and closure report was filed. Thereafter, a complaint has been filed on behalf of the accusedapplicant and after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. including the doctor, who examined the injuries of the accused-applicant and other accused. The complainant side has been summoned vide order dated 10.01.2021. He, therefore, submits that it is a cross case and it is for the prosecution to explain injuries caused to the accused-applicant and other accused. Prosecution has not come out with truth. He, therefore, submits that the accused-applicant who is in jail since 15.06.2015 pending trial is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶21

6. On the other hand, Mr.Lal Ji Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr.Brijendra Singh, learned A.G.A. oppose the bail application and submit that two persons have been mercilessly killed by the accused-applicant and coaccused. The accused-applicant was granted parole/short term bail for two months. However, he overstayed the short term bail. This Court took serious note of this fact. Mr.Lal Ji Yadav, learned counsel further submits that he has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the summoning order dated 20.01.2021, and this Court has been magnanimous in granting interim order staying further proceedings of the complaint case vide order dated 07.01.2021. He, therefore, submits that the conduct of the accused-applicant is not such, which would entitle him to be enlarged on bail.

¶22

7. I have considered the erudite submissions of counsels representing the parties. The accused-applicant has been in jail since 15.06.2015. Injuries caused to the accused side are to be explained by the prosecution. Stay order of this Court in the proceedings initiated by filing a complaint petition would not falsify injuries caused on the complainant side. The accused-applicant overstayed interim bail for 7 months for which this Court took serious note. However, considering the fact that both side allegedly assaulted each other and also the fact that the accused-

¶23

applicant has been in jail since 15.06.2015 and, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶24

8. Let applicant Ajay Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :-

¶25

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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. Trial Court should be strict in not accommodating the adjournments to either sides unless warranted under compelling circumstances.

¶26

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

(iii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶29

Order Date :- 25.5.2022 prateek

¶30

Digitally signed by PRATEEK ARORA Date: 2022.05.26 18:01:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Singh Third Bail v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Singh Third Bail v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Pinku Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Swarnkar Vs State of U.P.

Ram Khelawan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kaushal Vs State of U.P.