Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur) allowed bail to Shyam Babu under Sections 323, 326, and 506 IPC, finding him less culpable than co-accused who inflicted eye injury, subject to standard bail conditions.
Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of attendance, non-tampering with witnesses, and no illegal activities.
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. - 90 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46564 of 2021 Applicant :- Shyam Babu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R. P. Singh Parihar,Harish Pratap Singh,Nisha Singh Parihar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Joveen Kumar Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The accused- applicant Shyam Babu, is involved in Case Crime No.316 of 2021, under Sections 323, 506, 326 I.P.C., Police Station Cantt, District- Allahabad.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the dispute is between two real brothers regarding property. Previously, the NCR was registered under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. and after receiving the medical examination report Section 326 I.P.C. was added to it. The main role has been assigned to the sons of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.09.2021 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and argued that the injuries are inflicted by the accused persons due to which the injured has lost his eye site of one eye, hence, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
From the perusal of the first information report, it is clear that assertion is regarding assault by applicant and his three sons, namely, Suraj, Ravi and Twinkle. Three persons are said to be injured in the incident. The injuries of injured Ram Chandra (first informant) and injured Rahul are found to be simple. The injury report of injured Shubham is also on record wherein injury nos.1 was referred to eye surgeon and as per supplementary medical report, the injury was found to be grievous in nature with nil visual progress.
The statement of the injured Ram Chandra (first informant) and rest two injured persons are on record wherein they have specifically mentioned that the injury in the eye of Shubham was inflicted by Ravi and Suraj. The allegation on the applicant is that he did not check his sons and was just witnessing the incident. It is an admitted fact that previously also, there was some problem in the eye of injured Shubham regarding which his eye was operated but according to the said injured then there was slight vision in his eye but after this injury he has lost his
complete vision.
Be that as it may be, it is clear from the version of the first informant, injured Shubham and Rahul that the injury to Shubham was inflicted by co-accused Ravi and Suraj, hence, the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of coaccused Ravi and Suraj. The offence is triable by the court of magistrate and the applicant is in jail since 20.09.2021.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both the parties, considering the seriousness of the charge and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let the applicant, Shyam Babu , who is involved in aforesaid 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.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 24.3.2022 Radhika
Digitally signed by RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA Date: 2022.03.28 10:09:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being involved in an offence causing grievous injury.
Whether the applicant can be released on personal bond and sureties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherFollowed¶10
(2018) 2 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Shyam Babu
Sadhna Rani Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Sadhna Rani Thakur
Parties & counsel
