Allowed

Chandramani Mishra S/O Parasnath v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Allahabad HC23 May 2022/5094/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was filed by a 74-year-old accused charged with grievous hurt and attempted murder. The High Court, noting his age and severe injuries sustained when he was attacked, granted bail. The court relied on parity arguments as other co-accused had already been released, emphasizing the lack of a specific role attributed to him.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding presence, non-adjournment, and travel.

Chandramani Mishra S/O Parasnath Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5094 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chandramani Mishra S/O Parasnath Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dev Mani Mishra, who has filed 'Vakalatnama' for the informant / complainant and Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant who is old aged person of 74 years is in jail since 6.4.2022 in Case Crime No. 430 of 2020, u/s 147, 148,149,323,504, 506, 307, 302, 452, 427 IPC, P.S. Raniganj, District Pratapgarh. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶7

Attention has been drawn towards F.I.R. wherein allegation of assault of beating up has been leveled against 14 accused persons including the present applicant. As per learned counsel no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. The motive attributed for the assault was relating to one Abadi land. There is a cross case version wherein the F.I.R. has been lodged from the side of the present applicant. Prima facie, it appears, as per learned counsel, this is a case of free fight wherein both the parties have beaten up each other and which side was aggressor is question of fact which has to be seen by the learned trial court but the land dispute is a fact between both the parties. Learned counsel has shown the statements of independent witnesses to show that the present applicant has sustained injuries at the time of starting the dispute as he was attacked with sharp edged weapon (Fawda) and the present applicant sustained injuries as his injury is Annexure no. 3. The injuries of the present applicant are as under :

¶8

" 1. Lacerated wound over top of the skull with lacrate margin about 3" Long and bond deep, would is fresh & profusely bleeding.

¶9

2. Lacerated wound at top aspect of L. Leg about 3" about top of fibula & about 2" Long and bond deep. Wound margin are fresh and bleeding.

¶10

3. Swelling over medial ......L. ankle & brasing and whole ankle is deformed.

¶11

4. Large contusion over Lt. forearm 4" below elbow contusion about 5" long & 3" wide (spread over ulna aspect of arm from upper and to wound 13 juncture.

¶12

Adv. CT Head

¶13

X-ray Lt. ankle & Leg AP-KT S-ray Lt. forearm AP-KT

¶14

Opinion:- injuries are due to hard and blunt object."

¶15

Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant and even if the prosecution story is considered on its face value, at the very outset the present applicant has himself sustained serious injuries, therefore, he was not able to cause any injury to anyone. Further, attention has been drawn towards the bail order of one named co-accused person Madhav Prasad Mishra who has been granted bail on 25.2.2022 in Bail No. 241 of 2022. In this bail order this Court has taken in to account the fact that co-accused Rajesh Mishra @ Gauru has been granted bail vide order dated 6.5.2022 in Bail No. 9189 of 2021. Besides, another co-accused Shatrughan Mishra has been granted bail by this Court on 7.10.2021 in Bail No. 4247 of 2021. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts the present applicant may be enlarged on bail even on the principles of parity.

¶16

The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant / complainant opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that even though no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant but the main motive is attributed to the present applicant, therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail.

¶18

On being confronted on the point regarding the injury report of the present applicant, no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant and three co-accused persons out of which one is named in the F.I.R., has been

¶19

granted bail, learned counsel for the informant / complainant as well as learned AGA have submitted that the aforesaid facts being matter of record, therefore, nothing to say.

¶20

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the allegations of F.I.R., the injury report of the present applicant, the age of the applicant i.e. 74 years and the fact that three accused persons have been granted bail, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶21

Let the applicant Chandramani Mishra, involved in aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶27

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶28

Order Date :- 23.5.2022/Om

¶29

Digitally signed by OM PRAKASH MISHRA Date: 2022.05.23 19:14:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandramani Mishra S/O Parasnath v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandramani Mishra S/O Parasnath v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

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

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. through the Principle Secretary Department Od Home, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lko

Chandani and another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Home Lucknow

Bankey Lal Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Dept of Home U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Chhotkau Singh (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary(Home),Civil Secretariat,Lko

Jagrani W/O Sri Gangaram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home

Kafeel Khan S/O Moteen Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home