Allowed

Veenesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2022BAIL/39357/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench allowed bail to the applicant in an FIR involving culpable homicide, hurt, and insult. The court noted the cause of death was cardiac shock without fatal injuries and the applicant had no prior criminal record. Bail granted with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties in the prescribed amount subject to specified conditions.

Veenesh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39357 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Veenesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhishm Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atul Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bhishm Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Atul Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Veenesh under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0036 of 2021, for offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 304 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police StationLinepar District- Firozabad during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No. 01, Firozabad vide order dated 20.07.2021.

¶7

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 24.02.2021 has been lodged against the applicant and two other co-accused persons stating therein that on 23.02.2021 at about 07:00 P.M. first informant and his family members were present at their house at that time applicant and co-accused persons Brijmohan and Rajkumar, drunkenly stood in front of his house and started abusing his father, when the first informant asked the reason for abuse, then all the above people got furious and committed marpit to his father with lathi and iron rods, when the first informant tried to save his father, then Raj Kumar assaulted the first informant with lathi. It is further alleged that on being hue and cry family members and other neighbors came there and then the applicant and other coaccused persons fled away from the spot. The family members of the first informant took his father to the Hospital, where after examination, the doctor declared the father of the first informant dead.

¶8

After lodging of the first information report, investigation started, inquest proceedings of the dead body of the deceased has been conducted on 24.02.2021 at Mortuary House of the District Hospital, Firozabad wherein no external injury has been found at the time of inquest. The postmortem of the deceased

¶9

has been conducted on 24.02.2021 and medical examination of the first informant Lalta Prasad has been conducted on 23.02.2021 at about 10:45 P.M. at District Hospital, Firozabad. After recording the statement of the witnesses and completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been submitted on 09.08.2021 against the applicant and two other co-accused persons. The applicant was arrested on 06.07.2021.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. As per the postmortem of the deceased Balak Ram multiple abraded swelling 7 x 6 cm has been found over the back of right hand. No other external injury has been found on the body of the deceased. The cause of death is cardiac shock as a result of myocardial infraction. The first informant/injured Lalta Prasad sustained two injuries one is lacerated wound over the right eyebrow and other is swelling on right forearm were found in the medical examination. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no fatal injury was found on the body of the deceased. He further submits that other co-accused Rajkumar having similar role has granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32967 of 2021 on 24.09.2021.

¶11

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶14

(a) F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and two other named persons.

¶15

(b) The deceased Balak Ram received a multiple abraded swelling on the back of his right hand.

¶16

¶17

(d) No fatal injury was found on the body of the deceased/ Lalta

¶18

Prasad.

¶19

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶20

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let applicant, Veenesh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶22

(i) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶24

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶26

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶27

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

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶29

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶30

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶31

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶32

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.

¶33

Order Date :- 10.2.2022 Ishan

¶34

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.02.16 10:27:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Veenesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veenesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhilesh Kumar Verma Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shahjad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Vs State of U.P.

Nagar Swasthaya Adhikari Nagar Nigam Agra vs Durg Pal

Saleem Vs State of U.P.

Pushkar Yadav Vs State of U.P.