Dismissed

Dushyant Kumar v. State of Up through Secretary Home

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2022BAIL/20612/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge judge rejected a bail application in a criminal trial for alleged armed assault, gunshot injuries and attempt to murder, holding that the applicant is not a fit case for bail due to the gravity of the offence and medical evidence of grievous injury to the victim.

What did the court decide?

Bail application of the applicant Dushyant Kumar in Case Crime No. 57 of 2022 is rejected.

Dushyant Kumar Vs State of Up through Secretary Home — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20612 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dushyant Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up Through Secretary Home Counsel for Applicant :- Sharda Prasad Mishra,Anshul Tiwari,Nitinjay Pandey,Rajive Ratn Singh,Rishi Kant Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Kishore Pandey,Ravikant Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri B. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ravikant Shukla, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

This first bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 57 of 2022, registered under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 9/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Dilari., District Moradabad during pendency of the trial.

¶7

It is alleged in the FIR that on 18.03.2022 when the son of the informant was playing woofer (music sound bar) near his house then accused persons, namely, Dushyant son of Rishipal, Rishipal son of Dharmpal and Kapil son of Ramveer came to the spot and tried to stop the son of informant not to play the woofer on this issue accused persons entered into quarrel and started maar-peet. After sometime applicant along with co-accused, namely, Rishipal and Kapil at about 2 pm reached over the plot of Pradhan Mahipal armed with deadly weapons and entered into scuffle with the son of informant-Puneet Yadav then Kavendra, Jai Prakash, Ravindra, Priyanshu, Ajay Pal and Rahul reached to the spot to save informant’s son-Puneet as a result thereof, they have also sustained grievous injuries. Informant’s son received fire arm injury thereafter accused persons ran away from the spot.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to prior enmity with the

¶9

informant. The applicant has been intentionally dragged in the present case. Applicant’s side also lodged FIR as Case Crime No.58 of 2022 on 19.03.2022 regarding the same incident and from the applicant’s side, three persons received injuries. All the injured were medically examined. Informant’s son Puneet, who has received fire arm injury, doctor has opined that injury Nos.1 and 2 are simple in nature caused by fire arm. Injury Nos.3 and4 are caused by blunt object. Injury No.3 is simple and injury No.4 was kept under observation. He further argued that both the party were involved in scuffling and received injuries for the same alleged offence and at this stage it cannot be said that who was the aggressor, further argued that from the record it is evident that informant are aggressor and informant has received injury on account of private defence. Applicant is student and is languishing in jail since 23.03.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that the applicant has two cases of criminal history and he has been assigned the role of causing injury by fire arm to the injured and injury received by injured-Puneet, are grievous and dangerous to life. Statement of injured has also made specific allegation against the applicant for firing. The statement of injured, contents of FIR and medical report are corroborating to each other. Injure-Puneet was initially admitted in Community Health Centre from where he was referred and admitted in Military Hospital, Bareilly for 18 days. The injuries sustained by the injured are as follows:

¶11

An entry wound about 0.7 x 0.7 cm on left shoulder about 6 cm medial to tip of left shoulder, round in shape, margin inverted, bleeding present KUO.

¶12

An exit wound from lower end of right scapullar, round in shape margin everted bleeding present KUO.

¶13

A lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm on left side

¶14

upper lip. Bleeding present.

¶15

4. Bleeding from upper and lower joint KUO.

¶16

In support or his contention, he has placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the cases of Manno Lal Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. and another , 2022 (119) ACC 251 concern para 8.2, Imran Vs. Mohd. Bhava and another , 2022 (120) ACC 270 concern paras 27 and 30, Jaibunisha Vs. Meharban and another , (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 390 concern para 18, Ajwar Vs. Niyaj Ahmad and another , Criminal Appeal No.1722 of 2022 concern para 19 and in the case of Lakshmi Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 394 concern para 12.

¶17

Considered the argument raised by learned counsel for the parties it is evident that applicant has been attributed the role of firing by which injured has received grievous injuries. Medical report and statement of witnesses supporting the version of FIR. After pacifying the matter again they intentionally approached to informant that make out a case against the applicant.

¶18

After perusal of records and looking to seriousness and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, I do not find it is a fit case for bail to the applicant.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant- Dushyant Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 57 of 2022, registered under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 9/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Dilari., District Moradabad is hereby rejected at this stage.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.12.2022 Nitin Verma

¶21

(Deepak Verma, J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by NITIN KUMAR VERMA Date: 2022.12.22 10:20:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dushyant Kumar v. State of Up through Secretary Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dushyant Kumar v. State of Up through Secretary Home

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

Somil Vs State of U.P.

Kandha Singh Alias Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shakeel Khan Vs State of U.P.

Sushma Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Majid @ Majid Vs State of U.P.

Shobhit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others