Criminal Misc. Application for anticipatory bail filed pursuant to Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The single judge held that the presence of firearm injuries and closed proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. rendered the case unfit for interim protection.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12103 of 2022
Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhai Kumar Tiwari,Ajai Kumar Singh Kushwaha,P.K. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for State.
The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to Case Crime No. 140 of 2016, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Kurawali, district Mainpuri (Session Trial No. 140 of 2017).
As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith other coaccused persons is stated to have assaulted the first informant and his family members on 30.4.2016 at about 5.00 pm armed with firearm weapons and other hard and blunt objects.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant is a school teacher and being a government employee, he is entitled for anticipatory bail in light of the judgement of this Court passed in Suresh Babu versus State of U.P. and Another 2022 0 Supreme (All) 653 . Learned counsel has further stated that the present FIR is a cross case to FIR No. 139 of 2016, as the father of the applicant had expired as a result of the injuries sustained in the said altercation and an FIR was lodged by the deceased person himself. Learned counsel has next stated that after thorough investigation, the investigating officer was pleased to file a closure report with respect to applicant and five other accused persons and had filed a charge sheet with
respect to accused Manjit only. Learned counsel has further stated that applicant was not present at the scene of occurrence and he has strong alibi that he was undertaking training of B.T.C. at DIET Etah. Learned counsel has next stated that as there is a strong alibi of the applicant, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail although the other co-accused persons, who were also summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., have already been enlarged on regular bail by the court concerned. Learned counsel has further stated that the injuries sustained by two injured persons are simple in nature and no ingredients of Section 307 IPC are made out and at most, the case falls under Section 324 IPC. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the statement of treating doctor namely, Dr. Sarvesh Kumar Yadav, who has stated that he had found the injuries to be simple. There is no criminal history of the applicant. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and has disputed the said arguments tendered by learned counsel for the applicant on the ground that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are not simple and two of the injuries are firearm injury and the injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 sustained by Hardayal are on the vital organ i.e. head and it is mentioned in the medical report itself that the two injuries are firearm injury i.e. through and through.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that nothing abnormal has been detected in the X-ray report of the injured person with respect to the firearm injury.
Learned A.G.A. has stated that as the firearm injury has been opined to be through and through, there was no possibility of finding any abnormality in the body of the injured person. The injuries sustained are not simple. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that it has come up in the statement of the doctor himself that he had referred the patients to district hospital, Mainpuri for further
treatment. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that being the cross version, the applicants are not entitled for bail in the light of the settled law of this Court passed in Shivam vs. State of U.P. and another reported in AirOnline 2021 All 484,
Learned A.G.A. has also stated that the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. are also complete with respect to the applicant. He has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730, wherein it has been held that the applicant cannot be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties, I do not find it a fit case for the interim protection or anticipatory bail.
In view of the above, present anticipatory bail application is devoid of merits and hence, is dismissed . Order Date :- 7.12.2022 Shalini
Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.12.09 11:27:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in the present cross-cases involving assault and firearm injuries.
Whether the applicant's strong alibi and lack of criminal history justify the grant of interim protection in a serious offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suresh Babu versus State of U.P. and AnotherReferred¶8
Suresh Babu versus State of U.P. and Another 2022 0 Supreme (All) 653.
Shivam vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶13
Shivam vs. State of U.P. and another reported in AirOnline 2021 All 484
Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Referred¶14
Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730 · Who else cites this
Saurabh Kumar
Krishan Pahal
Shalini Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
