Allowed

Jagdish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2022/8893/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for offenses under IPC 323, 308, 325, 504, 506, the court observed that injuries did not support the prosecution version. Balancing the severity of punishment, prima facie satisfaction of charges, and reformative theory, the court identified it as a fit case for bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding witness tampering, attendance in court, and prohibition of seeking adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8893 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jagdish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sudhir Upadhyaya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 128 of 2021, under Sections 323, 308, 325, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Katra Bazar, District Gonda.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He next added that allegation against the present applicant is that he has assaulted the injured with axe and the injured persons have received serious injuries. He has drawn attention towards injury report which is clearly shows that those are lacerated wounds. He added that as per the opinion of Doctor, injuries caused by hard and blunt object. He submits that story of the prosecution is being demolished as injuries do not support to the assertion of the statement of injured as well as the fact mentioned in the FIR. He also added that criminal history has been explained by way of supplementary affidavit filed on 23rd September, 2022. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 12.07.2022. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the informant vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that there are specific allegation against the present applicant for assaulting the injured persons with axe and one of the witness has also stated that the applicant and another co-accused has assaulted him with hard and blunt object and as such injured person has

¶10

received serious injures and the applicant is not entitled to any relief.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has also supported the version of the counsel for the informant and submits that the injured persons have received serious injuries and present applicant is named in the first information report and there are specific allegation against him, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that injuries do not support the version of the prosecution; further from the statement of the injured, it is evident that the present applicant has assaulted with axe and as per the opinion of Doctor, injuries caused by hard and blunt substance; previous criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit and he is languishing in jail since 12.07.2022.

¶13

Thus, 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 without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Jagdish 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 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;

¶17

(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

¶18

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 :- 19.11.2022 A.Kr*

¶23

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.11.19 16:24:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jagdish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish 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

Mohammad Shanu Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anil Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Chandan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Musheer @ Museem @ Mohsim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Sectt. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Rakesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home U.P Civil Secretariat Lucknow

Gaurav Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.