Allowed

Vijay Pratap @ Puttur v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2022/13101/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 323/304 IPC, the High Court granted bail to the applicant. The court noted general allegations against all accused with no specific role or weapon for the applicant, no incriminating material found, and the applicant having undergone substantial detention. Bail was released on strict personal bonds.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail by executing a personal bond and two sureties on specific conditions including appearance in court and cooperation in trial.

Vijay Pratap @ Puttur Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13101 of 2021 Applicant :- Vijay Pratap @ Puttur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶3

Heard Shri Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶4

The applicant, Vijay Pratap @ Puttur, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 80 of 2021, under Sections 323, 304 I.P.C., Police Station Maharajganj, District Balrampur.

¶5

As per the prosecution case the F.I.R. was lodged on 24.08.2021 against four persons, namely, Bachchulal and his sons, Gobrey, the present applicant and Hagla with the allegation that the house of first informant was adjacent to the house of Bachchulal, the co-accused, the accused persons used to drain filthy water from their house in the house of first informant. On 16.08.2021 at about 5:30 p.m. when the first informant made complaint the accused persons abused the first informant. On listening noise elder brother-in-law of the first informant, namely, Babulal came there for rescue the first informant, then the accused persons started beating him with lathi, danda and iron rod, on account of which he sustained grievous injuries. The injured, Babulal was brought by the first informant at Government Hospital at Tulsipur, from where after some treatment he was referred for Lucknow, but in the way the injured died.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. No such incident as alleged by the prosecution took place. The entire prosecution story and the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated. The applicant was not present on the spot at the time of incident.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the entire first information report there is neither specific allegation assigned to any of the accused persons for assaulting the deceased, nor the applicant has been assigned any specific weapon for hitting the deceased. The inquest of the deceased, Babulal was conducted on 24.08.2021 and his postmortem was conducted on 25.08.2022. As per the postmortem report there

¶8

were three ante mortem injuries found on the person of the deceased, which are as follows:

¶9

(i) stitched wound of size 3.0 c.m. right side head 8.0 c.m. above from right ear under line bone fracture.

¶10

(ii) stitched would 4.0 c.m. back of head under line bone fracture 9.0 c.m. behind left ear.

¶11

(iii) stitched wound 2.0 c.m. left side back of head 9.5 c.m. behind left ear.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the postmortem report cause of death of the deceased was shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem head injury.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that after the postmortem, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the first informant, namely, Smt. Reeta Devi, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 25.08.2021, wherein she has repeated the same version as stated by her in the F.I.R. and a general allegation has been levelled against all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. and no specific allegation has been made against the applicant for hitting the deceased, Babulal, by which weapon. Thereafter, statements of eye witnesses, namely, Vijay Kumar (son of the deceased) and Smt. Gudiya (wife of the deceased) were also recorded, but they have also not specified any specific role to the applicant and a general allegation regarding hitting the deceased has been assigned by them by lathi, danda and iron rod against all the accused persons.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to the recovery memo of danda on the pointing out of the co-accused, Bachchulal, wherein it has been stated by him that in anger he hit the deceased, he was not having any intention to kill the deceased, whereas he has not made any allegation against the applicant in his confessional statement.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is a case of free fight between two neighbours. There was no intention to kill the deceased. It has further been argued that the alleged incident was occurred on 16.08.2021, whereas, the F.I.R. was lodged on 24.08.2021, i.e., after a delay of seven days, which too without any proper explanation, which also shows that entire prosecution story has been cooked up after due consultation with the help of some legal expert only with intention to implicate the applicant and other co-accused persons.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that eye witnesses are the family members of the deceased and they

¶17

have supported the prosecution case as set up by the first informant.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that nothing incriminating material has been recovered from the possession or the pointing of the applicant. No specific role has been attributed to the applicant for hitting the deceased and general role has been assigned to the applicant and other co-accused persons, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail by this Court sympathetically.

¶19

Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history, this fact has been stated in para-21 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 26.08.2021 and has already undergone a substantial period of detention, and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. while opposing the prayer, but has not disputed that general role has been assigned to all the accused persons for hitting the deceased by lathi, danda and iron rod, and no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused persons.

¶21

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering the fact that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant for causing injury to the deceased; no incriminating material has been recovered from his possession or his pointing out; general role has been assigned to all the accused person named in the F.I.R.; the co-accused, Bachchulal in the recovery memo has stated that he hit the deceased by danda, but he has not not said anything against the applicant; and considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the

¶22

Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶23

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶24

Let the applicant, Vijay Pratap @ Puttur, involved in Case Crime No. 80 of 2021, under Sections 323, 304 I.P.C., Police Station Maharajganj, District Balrampur, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶25

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶26

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶27

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶28

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶29

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

¶30

(6) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶31

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶32

(8) 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.

¶33

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶34

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

¶35

Order Date :- 1.8.2022 Mustaqeem

¶36

Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.08.04 16:19:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Pratap @ Puttur v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Pratap @ Puttur 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Awasthi Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Ibrahim Second Bail Application Vs State of U.P.

Maniram Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home, District Lucknow and 3 Ors.

Parshuram Vs State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary Home Deptt, Civil Secretarial U.P. Government Lucknow

Golu @ Sumit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.