Allowed

Javed v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Lko.

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2023/1016/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under criminal miscellaneous proceeding. The court found that the applicant made out a case for bail considering the witnesses' conflicting statements, the absence of specific role attributed to the applicant by some, and the lack of criminal antecedents. Bail was granted against a personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Accused to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence, cooperate in trial, and avoid criminal activity.

Javed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1016 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Javed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard 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 (Javed) for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.439 of 2022, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 304 and 504 I.P.C., Police StationMishrikh, District-Sitapur, during trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant in this case has been falsely implicated without there being any substance in the story of the prosecution as narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

¶8

It is further submitted that in the F.I.R., it is stated that there was some altercation on the fateful day between the present applicant, who was driven the Tempo bearing registration No.UP-34-T-9753, and the co-accused (Vinod Kumar Shukla) with deceased and many other persons who were traveling on the tractor trolley and according to the prosecution many persons had assembled at the scene of the altercation and when the driver of the tractor moved the tractor ahead, at that moment the present applicant along with the co-accused attempted to drag the deceased back and in this process, he came under the wheels of the trolley and sustained severe injuries on his head and died consequently.

¶9

While referring to the above facts stated in the F.I.R. and drawing the attention of this Court towards the statement of Panch witnesses, namely, Puttilal Kashyap, Munna Saxena and Ranjeet Kashyap, who were traveling in the tractor trolley with the deceased, it is submitted that these three witnesses of the incident have stated in their statement recorded by the Investigating Officer that at the relevant point of time many persons had accumulated in favour of the present applicant and the driver of the tractor moved the tractor ahead and in this process, the deceased Karan had fallen on the ground and came under the wheels of the trolley. Thus, according to the statement

¶10

of these witnesses, no culpability may be attached with the instant applicant.

¶11

It is further submitted that after recording of the statement of these eye witnesses, the Investigating Officer is stated to have recorded the statements of the two more witnesses, namely, Govind and Kamlesh who have claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses of the incident and admittedly they were not traveling in the tractor trolley alongwith the deceased and according to them when the deceased attempted to ride the trolley, he was dragged back by the instant applicant and the coaccused and in that process, he came under the wheels of the trolley and died.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that even if the case of the prosecution as is emerging from the statement of the prosecution witnesses is believed as it is, no intention or knowledge could be attached to the applicant. The applicant is in jail in this case since 02.09.2022 and he is not having any previous criminal history. Charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the co-accused of this case, namely, Vinod Kumar Shukla, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.820 of 2023, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be granted bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposes the prayer of bail and submits that the applicant has committed a heinous offence, therefore, could not escape the criminal liability. However, he is unable to dispute the other submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that no specific role has been attributed by the three eye witnesses, namely, Puttilal Kashyap, Munna Saxena and Ranjeet Kashyap to the instant applicant who were traveling in the tractor trolley along with the deceased and it is stated by them that in the process of riding the trolley, the deceased had come under the wheels of the trolley. However, there are two witnesses, namely, Govind and Kamlesh who claimed that when the deceased was attempting to ride the trolley, he was dragged down by the applicant and the co-accused Vinod Kumar Shukla and in this process, he came under the wheels of the trolley. It is vehemently submitted

¶16

that even if the statement of these two witnesses, namely, Govind and Kamlesh is believed as it is, no knowledge or intention to cause death of the deceased could be inferred and it was simply an accident. The applicant is in jail in this case since 02.09.2022 without any criminal antecedents. Charge-sheet in this case has also been submitted and the presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶17

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.

¶18

Let the accused/applicant (Javed) 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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 on the merits of the case.

¶25

Order Date :- 19.1.2023 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Suresh/

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Javed v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Lko.

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

Nawab Singh Vs State Thur. C.B.I.

Nawab Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. C.B.I

Smt. Kinchu Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Other

Smt. Ram Dulari Alias Dulari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko.

Manorma Devi Alias Manorama Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.