Allowed

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2023/364/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving assault and culpable homicide. The court noted the free-fight nature, victim injuries, and parity with co-accused. Bail was granted with personal bond and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount with specific conditions to ensure trial attendance.

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 364 of 2023

¶2

Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

¶3

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant (Virendra Kumar) is in jail since 09.11.2022 in F.I.R. No. 248 of 2022 u/s 147,323,504,506,304 IPC, P.S. Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

¶8

Attention has been drawn towards impugned F.I.R. wherein there are total seven accused persons including the present applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this is a case wherein on account of free-fight between the parties of both the sides two F.I.Rs. have been lodged. One F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 245 of 2022 u/s 147, 323, 325, 304 IPC, P.S. Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow has been lodged against the complainant / informant and others whereas subsequent to said F.I.R. impugned F.I.R. was lodged bearing Case Crime No. 248 of 2022. In the incident in question both sides have suffered injuries. One person from both sides have succumbed to the injuries, therefore, section 304 IPC has been added in both the F.I.Rs. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant has also suffered serious injuries. He was admitted in Trauma Centre. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of the witnesses wherein they have stated that the aggressors of the incident were from the side of the complainant / informant. He has also submitted that in the counter affidavit filed by the learned AGA the statement of eye witnesses have been enclosed which also indicates that the aggressors were from the side of the informant / complainant. Further, attention has been drawn towards the Annexure no. 9 whereby the learned counsel for the applicant has filed the bail

¶10

orders of Rinku, Rajesh and Tulsi Ram granted by this Court in Case Crime No. 245 of 2022 u/s 147, 323, 325, 304 IPC, P.S. Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 10846 of 2022, 11165 of 2022, 11763 of 2022 respectively, who are accused persons of the F.I.R. lodged by the side of the present applicant.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the co-accused person, namely, Ram Singh, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14462 of 2022 (Ram Singh vs. State of U.P. & others), therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be granted bail.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and he undertakes that he shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted, and shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid prayer for bail by submitting that serious allegations have been levelled against the present applicant and one injured person succumbed to injuries, therefore, the bail application of the present applicant may be rejected.

¶14

On being confronted on the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that on similar allegations the first F.I.R. was lodged from the side of the present applicant and some of the accused persons have been granted bail by this Court, learned AGA has stated that such orders have been passed by this Court, therefore, they have nothing to say. On being further confronted on the point as to whether this was a case of freefight between both the sides on same dates, therefore, two F.I.Rs. under more or less similar sections have been filed, learned AGA has stated that this is fact that the incident in question has taken place on the same date and F.I.R. from both the sides have been lodged under more or less similar sections.

¶15

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material available on record and also considering the fact that this is a case of free-fight between the two parties and F.I.R. was lodged from both the sides on the same date, one person from both the sides succumbed to the injuries and the accused persons of the F.I.R. lodged from the side of the applicant have been granted bail, the co-accused, namely, Ram Singh, of this

¶16

case has already been granted bail by this Court, this Court is of the view that the present-applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶17

Let the applicant (Virendra Kumar), involved in aforesaid case 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶23

Before parting with it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures as per law if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly. The learned trial court shall fix short dates to ensure that trial is concluded at the earliest.

¶24

Order Date :- 12.1.2023 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Suresh/

¶25

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

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home 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

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

Ravindra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Lko.

Surendra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. S.P. C.B.I/a.C.B. Lko.

Shivakant Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Ghanshyam Saroj Vs the State Thru. C.B.I.

Lalita Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.