Allowed

Vishal Kaunnaujiya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2022BAIL/6261/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6261 of 2022 filed by Vishal Kannaujiya, an accused in a rioting and assault case resulting in death. The court found that general assault roles were assigned to all accused and fatal injuries were attributed to a co-accused per the injured witness statement. As co-accused on equal footing were released on bail and the applicant has no cri

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6261 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vishal Kannaujiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sugendra Kumar Yadav,Anand Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sugendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Vishal Kannaujiya for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.64 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 352, 304, 336, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Mahuwadeeh, District Deoria, during trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶8

It is further submitted that the first information report of the incident was lodged on 01.06.2021 at 08:30pm by the injured/informant Bindu Devi at Police Station Mahuwadeeh, District Deoria pertaining to the incident, which had allegedly occurred on 31.05.2021 at 04:30pm stating therein that the applicant and other 12 persons named in the F.I.R. on the basis of prior enmity had come to the house of the informant and started assaulting her, her son - Shubbam @ Shivam and her husband - Rama Shankar Chaurasia with lathi-danda', ' Sabbal ', bricks and iron rod. As a result of assault, Rama Shankar Chaurasia sustained grievous injuries and had died during the course of treatment. The postmortem report of the deceased reveals that he had sustained six injuries and as per the opinion of the doctor, death of the deceased has been caused due to coma as as result of ante mortem injuries, while two injured persons namely Bindu Devi (informant) and Shubham @ Shivam have sustained three simple injuries of the nature of abraded contusion.

¶9

Highlighting the above facts as well as the statement of the injured witnesses namely Bindu Devi and Shubham @ Shivam witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is vehemently

¶10

submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that general role of assault with lathi-danda and iron rod has been assigned to all the accused persons in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the injured witness namely Bindu Devi recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, in the statement of the Shubham @ Shivam, the role of exhortation has been assigned to the accused Shailesh Chaurasia. It was specifically stated that on the exhortation given by Shailesh Chaurasia, accused Ram Pravesh Kannaujiya had assaulted the deceased on his head and thus if the story of the prosecution is taken on its face, the fatal injury, as per the statement of injured Shubhan @ Shivam has been caused by the co-accused Ram Pravesh Kannaujiya.

¶11

It is further submitted that no specific role of assault with a particular weapon has been assigned to the instant applicant and no recovery of any weapon has been effected either from the possession or from the pointing of the applicant. It is also submitted that co-accused persons of the crime namely Munna Yadav @ Bhagwan Yadav, Amar Nath Prasad, Rahul Kannaujiya and Lutawan Prasad standing on the identical footing as of the applicant have been released on bail by Coordinate Benches of this court vide orders dated 28.01.2022, 02.03.2022, 04.04.2022 and 25.01.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.36349 of 2021, 37362 of 2021, 34660 of 2021 and 37338 of 2021. Applicant is in jail in this case since 01.10.2021 and he is not having any criminal history. Charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶12

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed heinous offence and having regard to the manner in which the crime has been committed, he is not entitled to be released on bail but could not controvert the other fatual submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant pertaining to the fact that identically placed co-accused persons have been released on bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that in the F.I.R., general role of assault with lathi-danda', ' Sabbal ', bricks and iron rod has been assigned to all the accused persons named therein. In the postmortem report the deceased Rama Shankar Chaurasia is shown to have sustained six injuries. Out of these six injuries, three injuries have been found on top and back of head on occipital region, above right ear and on forehead 3cm above root of nose. The temporal, parietal, occipital on frontal bone of

¶14

the deceased was found fractured and the cause of death of the deceased was due to coma as a result of ante mortem injuries. It has been vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that general role of assault with lathi-danda', ' Sabbal ' bricks and iron rod has been assigned to all the accused persons in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the injured witness namely Bindu Devi recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and another injured namely Shubham @ Shivam has assigned the role of assault on the head of the deceased on the exhortation given by Shailesh Chaurasia to co-accused Ram Pravesh Kannaujiya, thus the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased according to witness Shivam have been caused by the coaccused Ram Pravesh Kannaujiya and the case of the applicant is at par with those, who have been granted bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court. Charge-sheet in this case has already been filed. Applicant is in jail in this case since 01.10.2021 without any previous criminal history. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶15

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶16

Let the accused/applicant- Vishal Kannaujiya involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶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

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are

¶22

accepted.

¶23

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.4.2022 Anupam S/-

¶25

Digitally signed by ANUPAM SINGH PATEL Date: 2022.04.22 16:40:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vishal Kaunnaujiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Kaunnaujiya 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalta Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Harpyari Vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Beena Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Yadav @ Chunne Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and Another

Riyazuddin Vs State of U.P.