Allowed

Mahendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2023ABAIL/12353/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court considered a case involving death of the deceased due to alleged assault. Relying on the nature of injuries and post-mortem findings suggesting natural causes, the Court granted bail, noting that a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and two sureties each of same amount subject to specific conditions.

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12353 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mahendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lavesh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Mani Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma holding brief of Sri Lavesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P.Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Mahendra with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.279 of 2016, under Sections 304 and 323 I.P.C., P.S. Achhnera, District Agra.

¶7

The relevant facts for disposal of this anticipatory bail application are that an F.I.R. was registered against the applicant and two others alleging that the informant's parents were attacked by the three accused persons. The accused Geeta hit the informant's mother with Danda and father was also given a blow by Danda by the applicant. Mahendra father of the informant was injured and was taken to the hospital where he died. The matter was investigated and final report was submitted by the I.O.. A protest application was filed by the first informant on which a complaint case no. 11 of 2018 was registered. Statements of witnesses under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and the present applicant was summoned under section 304 and 323 I.P.C. by order dated 30.05.2022.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has been summoned in a false case. No offence under section 304 I.P.C. is made out. The deceased died of some old ailment and not because of injuries sustained in the incident.

¶9

My attention has specifically been drawn to the post-mortem report in which only three injuries of the nature of abrasion have been found to be sustained by the deceased. The post-mortem report does not say that the deceased died of Ante-Mortem injuries, instead his blood vessels of his brain was found congested the pleura was found adhered to the chest wall, his lungs were found congested and presence of pus was found in the lungs. On the basis of above post-mortem report it is argued that the deceased died because of some other reason. It is quite improbable that he could have died because of abrasions of dimension 2x1 cm that too caused on knee, eyebrow and such other parts of body. The viscera was preserved, however, the cause of death could not be ascertained and on that basis only the final report was filed and now on the basis of oral statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the applicant has been summoned under section 304 and 323 I.P.C. in a complaint case.

¶10

The anticipatory bail application is opposed on behalf of the State. However, the facts as to filing of F.R., treating the protest as complaint case and uncertain cause of death and nature of injuries being abrasion

¶11

only are not confronted.

¶12

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶13

In the instant case, I considered the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, in my view a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶14

Let the applicant Mahendra involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and two sureties each of the same amount before the court concerned subject to the conditions as below:-

¶15

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶18

(iv) that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶23

Order Date :- 9.1.2023 Gaurav/Asha

¶24

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Saudan Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Agaaz and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sakir Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajaram and Another Vs State of U.P.