Allowed

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

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2022/3241/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. Bail Application was heard by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Court granted bail to the applicant, noting discrepancies between the FIR allegations of one iron rod blow and the 'S' shaped injuries, while accepting the prima facie case. Bail was granted on personal bond and sureties with strict conditions regarding trial presence.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions of attendance and non-interference with prosecution.

Roshan Lal Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3241 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Roshan Lal Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava,Aman Kumar Shrivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lohitaksha Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Memo filed today by Sri Padam Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Padam Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Lohitaksha Shukla, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh-I, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

As per the version of the F.I.R., the injured person was beaten by the applicant including other co-accused persons and there is specific allegation against the applicant of beating the injured person with iron rod.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. The informant is the cousin brother of the applicant and there was a dispute in between the applicant and injured with respect to a land. A partition suit is pending in respect of the said land. He submits that from the injuries, it is evident that those were not caused by iron rod as there is allegation that one blow of iron rod was given by the applicant over the head of the injured. The injuries are in 'S' shape, which cannot be caused by one blow with iron rod. As such, the injured person has got injured in some other incident. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the doctor, who has given the first aid to the injured from which it reveals that the injuries of the injured person are simple. The applicant has no previous criminal history except one F.I.R., which was lodged later on to add the gravity to the nature of offence, i.e., Case Crime No.0993 of 2021. The applicant is a law abiding citizen, who is in jail since 28.2.2022. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate in the trial proceeding.

¶9

Per contra, Sri Lohitaksha Shukla, learned counsel has very vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the

¶10

injured has received serious injuries. He has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.3 of the bail application and submitted that fractures are seen in the C.T. scan of ribs, as such, C.T. scan report corroborates the allegation in the F.I.R. and the prosecution story is intact. After the present incident, the applicant again committed an offence wherein he has tried to strangulate the injured and thus, there is apprehension that if the applicant would come out from the jail, he will again commit the offence and there is threat to the life of the injured.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the contention aforesaid and supported the version of the learned counsel for the informant and submits that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the photograph, which has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 of the counter affidavit filed by the informant, creates doubt in the story of the prosecution; from perusal of the aforesaid injury, it is evident that it is in 'S' shape but the allegation against the applicant is that he has beaten the injured by giving one blow with iron rod; the applicant has also mentioned the fact that there is a dispute in between the injured as well as the applicant regarding the property in question and a suit of partition is pending before the court concerned; the applicant has been enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.0993 of 2021; the applicant is a law abiding citizen; and he is in jail since 28.2.2022.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Roshan Lal Gupta 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

¶17

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;

¶18

(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

¶19

(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 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 25.11.2022 Ram Murti

¶23

Digitally signed by RAM MURTI YADAV Date: 2022.11.25 16:25:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

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

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.