Allowed

Keshav Ram Shukla and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2022/8113/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to three accused persons charged with offences including affray, voluntary hurt, and intentional insult under the IPC. The court considered the nature of the accusation, the character of the accused, and the public interest before allowing the application.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to strict conditions preventing tampering and ensuring appearance in court.

Keshav Ram Shukla and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8113 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Keshav Ram Shukla And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Dadu Ram Shukla (D.R. Shukla ),Karuna Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicants, which is taken on record.

¶6

Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the first informant, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Prem Prakash, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicants Keshav Ram Shukla, Anil Kumar and Shyam Babu under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 06 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308, 325 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police StationKauria, District- Gonda, during pendency of the trial.

¶9

As per the allegation of the first information report dated 07.01.2021 which has been lodged against 7 persons including the applicants stating therein that on 07.01.2021 at 07:00 P.M. applicants and other accused persons came to the field of the first informant and committed marpit by lathi and danda to the first informant and on raising an alarm all the people of the village gathered and they fled away form the spot after giving threatening with dire consequences.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize them. It is further submitted that general role of committing marpit have been assigned to the applicants. No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicants. As per medical report of the injured Raghav Ram dated 07.01.2021, multiple lacerated wound on head and other two injuries are

¶11

related to knee joint and elbow joint were found. As per x-ray report one fracture of ulna bone and one fracture of head are found.

¶12

It is further submitted that applicant has criminal history of two cases, out of which one case has been decided on the basis of compromise and in the second case applicant has granted bail, which is a minor offence. It is further submitted that co-accused Nanh @ Gulab Chandra having similar role has already been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶13

It is next contended that there is no other criminal antecedent to their credit except the aforesaid cases. 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 applicants, who are languishing in jail since 14.02.2022, undertakes that they 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.

¶14

Per contra , learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant have supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that 7 persons including the applicants committed marpit by lathi and danda, in which first informant sustained grievous injury and further submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they would not point out any material to the contrary. 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Let applicants, Keshav Ram Shukla, Anil Kumar and Shyam Babu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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:

¶19

(i) The applicants 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.

¶20

(ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

(iii) The applicants 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.

¶22

(iv) The applicants 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.

¶23

(v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 24.8.2022 Ishan

¶31

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.08.29 17:09:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Keshav Ram Shukla and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshav Ram Shukla and 2 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Awanish Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Amar Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Narendre Kumar Dubey (Second Abail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Nippu Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Zishan Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.