Dismissed

Shivam@ Ponu and 4 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2022ABAIL/2676/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Court dismissed anticipatory bail application by accused charged with alleged assault causing grievous injuries and attempt to murder. Court held that no grounds existed for bail given the heinous nature of allegations and injuries involving a firearm. Discussed relying on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected.

Shivam@ Ponu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2676 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shivam@ Ponu And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivek Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar Khare, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been moved by the applicants- Shivam @ Ponu, Vikas, Vinod, Dileep and Mukesh , in Case Crime No. 05 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 I.P.C., Police Station Kerakat, District Jaunpur, with the prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is a case of false implication in fact the applicant's side was assaulted by the informant's side wherein 03 persons received grievous injuries and just to pressurize the applicants a false case was lodged against them.

¶8

It is further submitted that two persons from the side of the informant namely Sonu Saroj and Alok Saroj are reported to have received injuries which are simple in nature and could not attract Section 307 I.P.C.

¶9

It is next submitted that applicants are respectable citizens of the locality and the investigating officer without there being any material is trying hard to arrest the applicant and, thus, protection from arrest be provided.

¶10

It is also submitted by the applicant that in the cross case lodged on behalf of the applicants, 05 persons who were made as accused have been granted bail by the subordinate court.

¶11

Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant, however, opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant on the ground that the manner in which the injured persons have been assaulted by the applicant would reveal that they were having common intention to cause death and one of the injured person namely Alok Saroj has also received a firearm

¶12

injury on his chest, which is a vital part of the body and it shows that the common intention of the applicants was to cause the death of injured Alok Saroj.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicants on the ground that having regard to the injury received by one of the injured namely Alok Saroj, the applicants are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the allegations of assault with country-made pistol and knife has been levelled in the first information report. It is also evident that a cross F.I.R. has also been lodged from the side of the applicants wherein 03 persons are reported to have received injuries. Injured Alok Saroj of this case, in his statement has attributed the role of firing on him to one of the applicant namely Shivam @ Ponu and also that other co-accused persons were also accompanying him. It is also evident that the other injured person namely Sonu Saroj has also received an injury caused by sharp edged weapon, which may correspond to the knife. Allegation against applicants are of causing heinous offence.

¶15

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement" reported in MANU/SC/1209/2019, in the considered opinion of this Court, no good ground exist in favour of the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail and, thus, the anticipatory bail moved by the applicant is, hereby, rejected.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.4.2022 Praveen

¶17

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.04.07 17:31:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shivam@ Ponu and 4 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam@ Ponu and 4 Others v. State of U.P.

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

Om Prakash @ Balla Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Phool Singh and 2 Other Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Rathaur Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Prajapati Vs State of U.P and Another

Akarsh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another