Saurabh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14198 of 2022

Applicant :- Saurabh Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Smriti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Seema Kashyap

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Smriti, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Ms. Seema Kashyap and Sri Anand Kumar Shukla, learned counsel, who have appeared on behalf of the informant/ complainant.

¶6

Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the informant/ complainant have filed their respective counter affidavits and learned counsel for the applicant has also filed rejoinder affidavit, today in the Court, all the aforesaid affidavits are taken on record.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 27.05.2022 in Case Crime No.195 of 2022, under Sections 304 & 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Pali, District-Hardoi.

¶8

Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) wherein the informant has levelled specific allegation against the present applicant that he has assaulted and beaten her husband mercilessly on 25.05.2022 at about 5:00 a.m.. Thereafter, her husband came to the house. On 26.05.2022, at 9:00 a.m. on his complaint, he was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Pali. During treatment her husband succumbed to injuries.

¶9

Ms. Smriti has drawn further attention of this Court towards Annexure No.2 of this application, which is a post-mortem report of her husband, wherein two injuries have been indicated to be sustained by the victim, which reads as under:-

¶10

"1. Abrasion of 06 cm x 01.5 cm present on front of neck just above suprasternal notch.

¶11

2. On opening chest and abdomen spleen found ruptured about 1.4 liter blood present in abdominal cavity."

¶12

The cause of death is due to hemorrhage shock on account of

¶13

ante-mortem injuries.

¶14

Ms. Smriti has further drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.5 of this application, which is statement of the informant/ complainant as PW-1 recorded before the Court concerned, wherein she has categorically deposed that the present applicant has not assaulted or beaten her husband. As a matter of fact, one stray Bull had attacked on her husband, resultant thereof, he suffered internal injuries and on the next date when he complained some pain was admitted to the hospital where he succumbed his injuries. She has further deposed that she had not levelled any allegation against the present applicant as her thumb impression was obtained on the plain papers. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the complainant/ informant/ PW-1 she was declared hostile. Likewise, one eye witness Ashok Kumar @ Doctor has also narrated the same story before the Court, therefore, he was also declared hostile witness.

¶15

Ms. Smriti has further submitted that the present applicant is having no criminal history of any kind whatsoever and he has been falsely implicated in this case for the reasons best known to the police inasmuch as the complainant/ informant is saying that she has not levelled any allegation against the present applicant. Therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. She has stated that if the present applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order and shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly.

¶16

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant/ informant have submitted that some more fact witnesses are yet to be examined, therefore, until and unless those fact witnesses are not examined the present applicant may not be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I find that considering the allegations of the F.I.R. wherein the informant has allegedly stated that the incident in question had taken place on 25.05.2022 at 5:00 a.m. morning thereafter her husband came to the house and when he complained some medical problem on the next date i.e. 26.05.2022 he was taken to the hospital at 9:00 a.m.. The F.I.R. was lodged on 16:02 hours on 26.05.2022 when the husband of the complainant/ informant succumbed to injuries. During examination before the Court, she (complainant/ informant) did not support the prosecution story and informed the Court that on account of attack by one stray Bull her husband sustained injuries. She has deposed that she

¶18

had not levelled any allegation against the present applicant. The complainant/ informant was declared hostile on account of the aforesaid statement. Another eye witness Ashok Kumar @ Doctor (PW-2) was also declared hostile as he had also narrated the same story as has been narrated by the complainant/ informant.

¶19

Therefore, considering the aforesaid fact and the undertaking of the present applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶20

Let the present applicant (Saurabh Mishra) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) 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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

(iv) 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court 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 against him in accordance with law.

¶25

Order Date :- 4.1.2023 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Suresh/

¶26

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

Saurabh Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharad Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Manorma Devi @ Manorama Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home

Suneel Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Rajendra Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Geeta Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Lko.

Bade Lal Dhobi @ Bade Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.