Allowed

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2022/11942/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 308, 323, 504, and 506 IPC arising from a family/domestic dispute over land, the court found discrepancies in the prosecution version and sudden provocation as the cause. The court granted bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding witness tampering and court appearances.

What did the court decide?

Release from custody on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding evidence tampering, court attendance, and appearance proceedings.

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11942 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ravi Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vaibhav Gupta,Rakesh Kumar,Syed Aftab Ahmad

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Singh Chauhan

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh-I, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 464 of 2021, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Kotwali Nagar, District - Sitapur.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He next added that there are general allegation in the FIR for beating the injured person with iron rod. He next added that one of the injured person has assigned specific role to the present applicant whereas another injured has not named the present applicant. He submits that there are certain discrepancies in the story of prosecution and there are contradictions in the statement of the injured persons as well as prosecution story. He added that all the injuries are simple in nature which was caused to one Suresh Kumar. He added that in fact applicant was not intended to beat the injured persons brutally, but due to some domestic quarrel and under sudden provocation it has happened and one of the injured has received injuries. He next added that applicant and informant are the family members and a civil suit is also pending between the parties. He next added that FIR was lodged but later on they sit together and decided that they will not pursue the case further. He further submits that criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 06.09.2022. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer of bail and submits that informant does not want to press this application any further as the applicant and the informant have amicably settled their differences/dispute so that they can live peacefully together.

¶11

Learned AGA submits that there are injuries over the head of one of the injured persons and one of the injured has named the present applicant and, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident in the FIR that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant though one of the injured has assigned specific role and, as such, there seems to be certain discrepancies in the statement of prosecution version; further there were certain family dispute in between the parties and aforesaid offence does not seems to be committed with any criminal intent but it seems to happen in sudden provocation as there was some enmity in between the parties with respect to land in question; further criminal history of the applicant has been explained aforesaid, coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 06.09.2022, thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Ravi Kumar involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He 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;

¶16

(3) 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.; and

¶17

(4) 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

¶18

court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

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.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations 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 merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 25.11.2022 Ujjawal

¶22

Digitally signed by UJJAWAL PARJAPATI Date: 2022.11.30 09:43:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Naushad Sheikh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Riyaj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Roshan Lal Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Abhay Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Kamta Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.