Allowed

Manoj @ Nanha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2022BAIL/24800/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Section 307 IPC, finding significant contradictions in the First Information Report, injury medical records, and the injured witness statement which created reasonable doubt in the prosecution's version.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail on execution of a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24800 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj @ Nanha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Saran Srivastava,Manoj Kumar,Sudhakar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Suresh Chandra Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sudhakar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Suresh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶6

The applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 96 of 2021 under Section 307 IPC P.S. Charwa District Kaushambi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and with malafide intention as the entire prosecution story has been levelled against the applicant due to village rivalry and as per the version of the first information report lodged by the informant, when his son Deepak Singh was going to install light in the house of one Bodhi, he was assaulted by the applicant and his two friends by some sharp edged weapon, whereas in his statement the injured did not say anything regarding installation of light in the house of Bodhi and has made entirely a new story that there was an illicit relationship of the applicant with his cousin sister namely Rama daughter of Sri Chandra which was objected by him, due to which the applicant was having grudge against him and he attacked with some sharp edged weapon on the injured along with his two friends, to whom he did not recognize as the incident took place on 15.5.2021 at 20.00 hours in the night.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is vast contradiction in the statement made by the injured as well as in the version of the first information report, which demolishes the entire prosecution story. He further submits that the injury report as well as the statement of injured Deepak Kumar Patel does not corroborate the story chalked out in the first information report as four injuries were shown by the doctor and the medical was conducted on the next day i.e. on 16.5.2021 at 3.05 p.m. in which injury nos.1 to 3 are shown to be grievous in nature and were advised for x-ray, however as

¶9

per the x-ray report, no bone fracture was seen. Therefore, it appears that all the four injuries are simple in nature and it was not mentioned that who has caused the injury to the injured as in the statement of the injured a doubt was created by him that all the three persons together hit him by sharp and blunt object.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of the Court regarding the time of incident which took place on 15.5.2021 at 20.00 hours in the night whereas the FIR was lodged on 16.5.2021 at 14.54 hours. Contention is that there is no satisfactory explanation for this delay in lodging the FIR which was lodged after around 24 hours.

¶11

Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 19.5.2021 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶12

Sri Suresh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfy this Court regarding argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant and he only submits that injuries are very serious in nature, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶13

Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶14

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, this Court finds that there is vast contradiction in the averments made in the first information report and also in the statement of the injured Deepak Kumar Patel. The malice behind the story is also seen that the injured had made a statement that there was an illicit relationship between the applicant and his cousin sister, for that reason the applicant had attacked the injured along with his friends to whom he did not recognize. The incident took place in the night at the lonely place. The injured was not sure as to who had hit him whereas in his statement he has not taken the

¶15

name of the applicant but has stated that all the three persons together hit him by the sharp and blunt object, which creates doubt on the statement of the injured. Further, as per the injury report there are four injuries out of which injury nos.1 to 3 are grievous in nature but as per x-ray report no bone fracture was seen, therefore it appears that all the four injuries are simple in nature. Further, the witness Ram Kailash the person in whose house the injured took shelter, has stated in his statement that he had not seen the incident and the injured person had informed him about the alleged incident. There appears to be force in the submission that incident could not be seen by any independent witness nor the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of any independent witness. Therefore, the charge sheet was submitted against the applicant only and other two co-accused persons were exonerated regarding whom allegation was made by the injured person Deepak Singh.

¶16

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and also considering the contradiction in the version of FIR and statement of injured Deepak Singh and considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant, Manoj @ Nanha, involved in Case Crime No. 96 of 2021 under Section 307 IPC P.S. Charwa District Kaushambi, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶19

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶20

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶21

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶22

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

(6) 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 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶25

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶26

(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶27

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶28

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

¶29

Order Date :- 2.3.2022 SP

¶30

Digitally signed by SALIM PRAVEJ Date: 2022.03.10 14:21:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj @ Nanha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj @ Nanha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Abdul Ahmed Vs State and Ors.

Prem Kumari Vs State of U.P.

Babli Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash (Minor) Vs State of U.P.

Dablu Vs State of U.P.