Court allowed bail application of Pradeep Agarwal in a complaint case under Sections 307 and 504 IPC, noting the case is old from 2004, FIR is retaliatory, and evidence is weak despite prior criminal history.
Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.
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. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37483 of 2022
Applicant :- Pradeep Agarwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey,Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shishir Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh Yadav, counsel for the applicant; Sri Shishir Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant; learned A.G.A. on behalf of State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Complaint Case No.792 of 2018, under Sections 307, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Etah, during pendency of trial.
Allegation in the F.I.R. is that on 30.10.2004 at about 11 pm. when informant was coming from Quality Hotel to his house then accused persons namely, Rajan Agarwal and Pradeep Agarwal obstructed his way and Pradeep Agarwal, armed with double barrel gun with intention to kill the informant, made fire shot and the informant received grievous injury.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Earlier applicant lodged F.I.R. against the informant under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and informant was convicted in Sessions Trial No.1125 of 1997, under Section 307/34 I.P.C. Present F.I.R. is in retaliation of conviction of informant. It is further submitted that there was no evidence against the applicant, therefore investigating officer submitted final report against the applicant. Against the final report, informant moved protest application before the competent court and thereafter, Civil Judge (Senior Division) treated the protest petition as complaint and summoned the applicant and co-accused vide order dated 31.08.2017 under Section 307 and 504 I.P.C. The Investigation Officer after collecting the evidence in the instant case, submitted final report but the trial court without applying judicial mind, summoned the applicant. The applicant has no concern with the alleged offence. As far as evidence collected by Investigation officer, no offence under the alleged sections is made out. There is no witness regarding the alleged incident. The applicant has seven cases of criminal history which has
been explained in para-10 of the rejoinder affidavit. Moreover, there is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.07.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and argued that applicant has seven cases of criminal history. The investigating officer did not consider the supplementary report of the injured and submitted final report against the applicant. He next argued that in the year, 2003, applicant misbehaved in the chamber of Civil Judge (Senior Division), therefore, Civil Judge lodged the F.I.R. against the applicant as case crime no.1243 of 2015. In X-ray/supplementary report of the injured, the shadows of circular radio opaque foreign objects of metallic density, one each in injured left thumb, left thigh and chest have been found. It has been further argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order of the court below. The applicant abstained himself from appearing before the court below since last five years, inspite of issuance of non bailable warrant against him. He surrendered on 25.07.2022. Further submission is that both the accused persons opened fire upon the informant. Hence, applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In reply to argument raised by counsel for the informant, counsel for the applicant argued that applicant has been granted bail in Case Crime No.1243 of 2015. The injured has not received any grievous or fatal injury. No offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made.
Perused the rival submission of counsel for the parties. It is evident from the record that F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant but investigating officer after collecting evidence found nothing against the applicant and exonerated the applicant from the offence. It is very old case of 2004 and applicant is languishing in jail since 25.07.2022. It is also admitted that there was prior enmity between the parties. False implication cannot be denied. Injuries are not grievous or fatal.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another , passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Pradeep Agarwal, who is involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 3.12.2022 Meenu
Digitally signed by MEENU SINGH Date: 2022.12.09 18:09:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in a case involving Sections 307 and 504 IPC given the oldness of the FIR and lack of substantive evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & AnotherReferred¶13
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021
Pradeep Agarwal
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
