Allowed

Subhash v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2022BAIL/18407/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a criminal bail application under Section 307 IPC. Considering the dispute between brothers, injuries sustained by the applicant, and the absence of prior criminal record, the court directed release subject to a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail furnished by personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and fixing, imposed by the trial court.

Subhash Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18407 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Subhash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Namit Srivastava,Mohd. Khalil Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Adesh Kumar,Barkha Chaudhary

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mohd. Khalil, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2022, under Sections 307 IPC, Police Station Kithaur, District Meerut during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. alleging that the applicant fired a gun-shot, which hit the jaw of the informant's husband and after that the applicant allegedly ran to hit complainant's son Praveen, but Praveen escaped.

¶8

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been stated in the affidavit that the applicant is the real younger brother of the alleged victim Rajendra and there has been a dispute amongst them regarding partition of some properties. The applicant's elder brother and the informant's husband wanted to oust Smt. Soniya wife of late Satish, who was the younger brother of the applicant, from the family property.

¶9

It has further been stated in the affidavit that on 10.01.2022, the informant, her husband and other family members were beating Smt. Soniya and her minor daughter Kavya and when the applicant tried to save them, he was assailed with a metal rod causing head injury to him which had to be treated by putting up 12 stitches. Smt. Soniya had lodged an NCR in this regard a copy whereof has been annexed with the affidavit. In the incident that occurred in the morning of 11.1.2022 also the informant's husband had caught hold of the applicant and Iswar Singh had fired a shot towards him but the applicant escaped and the shot hit the informant's husband in his jaw.

¶10

6. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.01.2022.

¶11

A counter affidavit filed on behalf of the informant has been verified by one Bimal son of Harbir Singh, who described himself to be a cousin ( sadhu ) of the informant and no reason has been disclosed as to why the informant's husband herself has not filed a counter affidavit. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the investigating officer properly concluded the investigation and rightly submitted the charge sheet against the applicant; that there is no property dispute between the family of the applicant; that the husband of the informant has no concern with his sister-in-law (Soniya) because she is living separately therefore husband of the first informant namely Subhash (injured) had no motive to torture and harass his sisterin-law (Soniya); that the medial examination was done on 12.01.2022; that the husband of the first informant namely Rajendra had received serious injury on his vital pat; that specific role of causing injury was assigned to the present applicant and a country made pistol was also recovered from the possession of the applicant and it appears that injuries are grievous in nature and also dangerous to life of the applicant, which shows the strong motive and intention to kill to the accused applicant.

¶12

The medial report of the applicant has been annexed with the affidavit in which it is specifically mentioned a stitched wound on frontal aspect of skull, about 2 days old.

¶13

The learned counsel for the informant has stated that statement of the informant and that of her injured husband has already been recorded by the trial court and both of them have supported the FIR version, true copies of the same have been provided by the learned counsel for the informant which are taken on record.

¶14

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but he could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶15

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and submissions and keeping in view the fact that the dispute arose between the two real brothers, in which the present applicant had suffered injuries on his skull which had to be stitched; that the statements of the informant as well as the injured person have already been recorded by the trial court and now the applicant is not in a position to influence the aforesaid witnesses and also keeping in view the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant Subhash be released on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2022, under Sections 307 IPC, Police Station Kithaur, District Meerut on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶20

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 1.11.2022 A.N. Mishra

¶24

Digitally signed by AMARNATH MISHRA Date: 2022.11.10 10:31:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Subhash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Sirajuddin @ Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shankar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others