High Court allowed bail to the applicant in a case involving grievous hurt on IPC 307/34, setting standard bail conditions.
Release of applicant on personal bond with two sureties subject to standard bail conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3427 of 2022
Applicant :- Shyam Kishore Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishwa Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumari Tiwari
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Vishwa Nath Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the first informant and Shri Diwarkar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Shyam Kishore aged about 23 years, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.348 of 2021, under Sections 307/34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police StationKhairighat, District- Bahraich, during pendency of the trial.
The brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 18.11.2021 was lodged against the applicant and three other co-accused persons by the daughter of the injured stating that on 17/18,11.2021 at 01:00 a.m., the applicant and other coaccused persons due to enmity took her father with the cot and committed mar-peet with him by lathi and danda and other weapon by which the face of her father has sustained injuries and after calling an ambulance by unknown villager, he took her father for treatment.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that as per the medical report dated 18.11.2021 at 4:45:33 p.m. at King George's Medical University, U.P. Lucknow, one laceration in lower lip is found on the person of injured and one teeth is also missing and NCCT of face is diagnosed. There is no other medical examination/medico-legal examination of the injured person. It is further submitted that as per statement of the injured the given role of assault has been assigned to the present applicant that the present applicant fired on the injured and he become unconscious. After one hour of the incident he got conscious and returned to his house and fell down on his cot and he told the whole story to his daughter, then an ambulance was called and took the injured.
It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 22.01.2022. It is further submitted that co-accused Jugul Kishore and Siddhnath, having similar role, has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.794 of 2022 on 02.02.2022. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the first informant has supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.
Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.
Let applicant, Shyam Kishore be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.
(iv) 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 the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.
The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
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.
Order Date :- 1.9.2022 S. Shivhare
Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHIVHARE Date: 2022.09.06 11:52:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail while the trial of a serious criminal case involving grievous hurt is pending.
Whether the applicant poses a flight risk or likelihood of tampering with witnesses justifying denial of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ BaliayReferred¶12
(1977) 4 SCC 308 · Who else cites this
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra PradeshReferred¶12
AIR 1978 SC 429 · Who else cites this
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors.Referred¶12
(2002) 3 SCC 598 · Who else cites this
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr.Referred¶12
(2010) 14 SCC 496 · Who else cites this
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr.Referred¶12
(2020) 2 SCC 118 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shyam Kishore
State Of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
