Allowed

Rahul @ Montu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2022BAIL/38382/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an applicant charged with offences including grievous hurt, observing that he had no criminal history and the case involved a cross FIR. Bail was granted with specific conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure trial cooperation.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on personal bond and heavy surety of Rs. 1,50,000/- subject to stringent conditions regarding trial conduct and evidence tampering.

Rahul @ Montu Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38382 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul @ Montu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Adesh Kumar,Barkha Chaudhary,Mehdi Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shamsher Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sharda Prasad Mishra, Advocate having roll no. A/S2451/13, holding brief of Sri Mehdi Abbas, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shamsher Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State through virtual mode.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 625 of 2021, under Sections 504, 308, 436 I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Baghpat, District- Baghpat.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 09.08.2021.

¶8

It is contended that the FIR has been lodged by one Smt. Arti W/o Arvind Kumar before Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat being FIR No. 0625 of 2021 under the aforesaid sections on 02.07.2021 at 14:30 hours alleging that the complainant on 02.07.2021 at 02:30 hours was returning from the police station Tatiri while informing the police official that she has go to her house the police personal who was posted therein told the complainant that she could go as she is free to go however, when the complainant along with one Smt. Shushma and others came to their house, at that relevant point of time the applicant started hurling abuses and when the same was being resisted then he became infuriated and with the aid of the spade, he attacked the ladies including the injured Shushma on account whereof serious head injuries was sustained by her and she became unconscious and thereafter, the applicant ran away in the two wheeler in question. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the court towards annexure-5 page 33 of the bail application so as to contend that the father of the applicant being Sri Khemchand had lodged the FIR before police station Baghpat, District Baghpat being the FIR No. 0184 on 22.03.2021 at 14:15 hours u/s 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 IPC in relation to the commission of the offence under

¶9

the above noted sections on 21.03.2021 against the husband of the injured Shushma being Shripal and others who are claimed to relatives of the other fractions with an allegation that beating was administered pursuant thereto the brother of the applicant being Akash succumbed to the injury and he died. He further drawn the attention of the Court towards page no. 39 of the bail application being charge sheet submitted u/s 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506, 307, 302 dated 30.06.2021 against the accused. He further has sought to argue that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case in question particularly in view of the fact that it is nothing but a counter blast so sought to be extended on behalf of the complainant side as the applicant hereinabove is contesting the bail application so moved by the accused in the FIR so lodged by the father of the applicant. He further argued that ultimately, the applicant is looser as he has lost his brother. Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention towards paragraph no. 9 of the bail application so as to contend that as per the case diary in question there is no X-ray as well as supplementary report is available on record. He further drawn the attention of the Court towards supplementary affidavit filed by him dated 20.12.2021 so as to contend that even from the perusal of S.A.-4 at page 25 of the same which happens to be the statement of the injured Smt. Shushma in which she has stated that she has sustained injuries in her head and the matter had been referred from Meerut to Delhi in the G.T.B. Hospital and X-ray was also sought to be done. He next argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated just in order to settle the score. He further drawn the attention of the court towards paragraph no. 15 so as to contend that the applicant does not possess any criminal history.

¶10

Countering the said submission, learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail and has argued that there exist the medico legal report which shows that grievous injuries have been sustained by the injured Shushma and the said fact also stands proved from the statement wherein the allegations contained in the FIR as well as the statement made under section 161 Cr.P.C. He has further made a statement after going through the entire case diary that the X-ray report is not available, which he was required to submit by virtue of order dated 24.01.2022 in relation to the specific averment made in paragraph no. 9 of the bail application with respect to the injured Shushma, however, the learned AGA has also argued that the injury report shows that there are four injuries sustained by the injured and further the fact that merely because, the applicant does not have any criminal history, he cannot be said to be innocent.

¶11

Sri Shamsher Singh, learned counsel for the complainant has

¶12

also opposed the bail while arguing that the injured sustained grievous injuries and the fact that the applicant has committed offence and in case he is enlarged on bail without any stringent condition then the same will be the a ground to misuse the liberty so accorded by the Court.

¶13

Considering the submission so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, on the question of bail, prima facie this Court finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail with certain conditions as the applicant does not have any criminal history further, this is a case of cross FIR and looking into the nature of the acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O. in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶14

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶15

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant Rahul @ Montu involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and heavy surety of an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with the following conditions that :-

¶17

(i). The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(iv). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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.

¶21

(v). In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be

¶22

a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

(vi). Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

(vii). The applicant shall appear before the concerned police station on the first day of each month.

¶25

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶26

Order Date :- 4.2.2022 Nisha

¶27

Digitally signed by NISHA KUMARI Date: 2022.02.08 11:16:33 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul @ Montu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul @ Montu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar@ Raju Vs State of U.P.

Wahid Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Subhash Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Rais Vs State of U.P.